CHANGES  IN  THE  DIVINE  SERVICE 

OF  THE  SYNAGOGUE  DUE  TO 

RELIGIOUS  PERSECUTIONS 


BY 

JACOB  MANN 

HEBREW  UNION  COLLEGE.  CINCINNATI,  OHIO 


REPRINTED  FROM 

THE  HEBREW  UNION  COLLEGE  ANNUAL 
VOLUME  IV 


CHANGES  IN  THE  DIVINE  SERVICE  OF  THE 

SYNAGOGUE  DUE  TO  RELIGIOUS 

PERSECUTIONS 

By  JACOB  MANN.  Hebrew  Union  College,  Cincinnati.  Ohio. 

CONTENTS 

Introduction  (pp.  242-45). 

I.  Changes  due  to  the  opposition  against  the  Shema'  (pp.  245-61) 

1.  Shema'  in  the  section  DTK  Nrr  nViy1?  (pp.  246-51). 

2.  Shema'  in  the  Kedushah  (pp.  251-59). 

3.  Shema'  at  the  taking  out  of  the  Scroll  (pp.  259-61). 

4.  Shema'  at  the  conclusion  of  Ma'arib  (p.  261). 

II.  Changes  due  to  the  opposition  against  the  Trishagion  (J^edu- 

shah)  (pp.  261-77). 

1.  Trishagion  in  the  service  of  the  Synagogue  (pp.  261-63). 

2.  Trishagion  in  the  Christian  liturgy  (pp.  263-65). 

3.  Jewish   conception   of  Trishagion   versus   Christian   one 
(pp.  265-67) 

4.  Reports  concerning  the  origin  of  NTIDT  ncmp  (pp.  267-70). 

5.  The  original  meaning  of  NTTDI  ncmp  (pp.  270-74). 

6.  Discussion  of  Sotah  49a  with  regard  to  NTIDI  ntrmp  (pp. 
274-77). 

III.  Objections  to  the  daily  'Amidah  (pp.  277-79). 

1.  D'ron  ro-a  in  the  Palestinian  ritual  (pp.  277-78). 

2.  Origin  of  l^ion  rona  in  Ma'arib  (pp.  278-79). 

IV.  Changes  in  connection  with  the  reading  of  the  Torah  and  the 

Prophets  (pp.  279-87). 

1.  The  prohibition  of  the  Deuterosis  and  the  origin  of  the 
Piyyut  (pp.  279-82). 

2.  Haftarot   from    Deutero-Isaiah   at  Sabbath    Minhah   in 
Babylon  (pp.  282-86). 

3.  The  "seven  Haftarot  of  Consolation"  in  Babylon   (pp. 
286-87). 

241 


2097608 


242  JACOB  MANN 

V.     Other  Items  (pp.  287-301). 

1.  The  Decalogue  in  the  Liturgy  (pp.  288-89). 

2.  Tephillin  (pp.  289-99). 

3.  The  blowing  of  the  Shofar  on  New  Year  (pp.  299-301). 
Conclusion  (p.  301-302). 

Appendix:  Date  and  Place  of  Redaction  of  Seder  Eliyahu  Rabba 
and  Zutta  (pp.  302-310). 

INTRODUCTION* 

ELIGIOUS  persecutions,  or  rather  persecutions  directed 
against  the  steadfast  adherence  of  the  Jewish  people  to  its 
conception  of  God  and  His  teachings,  naturally  aimed  first  of  all 
at  the  divine  service  of  the  synagogue.  There  the  Jewish  people 
gave  public  expression  to  its  religious  beliefs,  its  hopes  and  as- 
pirations. The  liturgy  of  the  synagogue  reechoed  the  doctrine  of 
Judaism,  proclaimed  the  unity  of  God  and  the  uniqueness  of 

*The  following  abbreviations,  besides  the  customary  ones  for  periodicals, 
will  be  used  in  the  subsequent  pages. 
'Amram  =pxi  anny  an  -no,  ed.  Warsaw,  1865;  ed.  Fr.  =oV»n  anoy  an  mo,  ed. 

Frumkin,  Jerusalem,  1912. 
Elbogen  =  Elbogen,  Derjud.  Gottesdienst,  1913;  the  notes  are  cited  from  the  2nd 

edition. 

'Ittim=Judah  b.  Barzillai,  D'nyn  nso,  ed.  Schor,  1902. 
Mann  =  Mann,  Genizah  Fragments  of  the  Palestinian  Order  of  Service   (in 

Hebrew  Union  College  Annual,  II,  pp.  269-338). 

Noldeke,  Tabari  =  Geschichte  der  Perser  u.  Araber  zur  Zeit  der  Sassaniden.     Aus 
der  arab  Chronik  des  Tabari  (ibersetst  u.  mit  ausfiihrlichen  Erlauterungen  u. 
Erganzungen  versehn  von  Th.  Noldeke,  Leyden,  1879. 
S.  E.  R.  =Nt3ir  irr1™  nnoi  nan  irv^N  nno,  ed.  Friedmann,  1902. 
Soferim  =  OHfliD  rooD,  ed.  Miiller,  1878. 
Vitry  =  HB'i  mrno,  ed.  S.  Hurwitz,  1889. 
riN  =  Isaac  of  Vienna,  ynr  m«,  Zhitomir. 
^"i=D'JiNjn  niaiem,  ed.  Musafia,  Lyck. 
D"n  =  R.  Rabbinovicz,  nnsiD  'pnpn. 
3"n  =  nm3  nnon  D'3ixjn  niaipn,  Jerusalem. 
B"n=mpiDD  ma^n  D'JiNjn  maie>n,  ed.  Miiller. 
b'niv  =$edekiah  b.  Abraham,  tspVn  'Va»,  ed.  Buber. 
V"o  =  Isaac  ibn  Gayyat,  nriD0  'ny»,  ed.  Bamberger. 
n*»=nai»n  ny»  D':i«jn  m.ai»n. 

hv  jnmn  i«  mal?nn  ma:  n'a,  ed.  Horowitz,  1881. 


CHANGES  IN  THE  DIVINE  SERVICE  243 

Israel,  and  reiterated  the  story  of  the  Bible,  the  exalted  orations 
of  the  Prophets  and  the  soul-stirring  outpourings  of  the  Psalm- 
ists. Within  the  scheme  of  the  order  of  divine  service  of  the 
synagogue  the  preachers  and  interpreters  found  the  opportunity 
of  instructing  and  edifying  the  worshippers  by  the  living  word 
of  the  Torah. 

Some  of  these  doctrines,  publicly  proclaimed  in  the  syna- 
gogue, were  construed  by  the  ruling  religions  as  challenges  to 
their  own  teachings.  The  arm  of  the  state  was  wielded  to  pro- 
scribe these  doctrines.  The  Jews  had  to  bow  to  the  force  majeure 
without  giving  up  in  the  least  their  cherished  beliefs  and  without 
their  spiritual  leaders  lacking  in  ways  and  means  of  how  to  nullify 
the  edicts  that  violated  their  elementary  rights  of  religious 
conviction.  Changes  had  to  be  made  in  the  service  to  meet  the 
new  conditions  imposed  by  the  power  of  the  state  and  the  traces 
of  these  changes  remained  even  after  the  emergencies,  that  had 
called  them  forth,  disappeared  with  the  setting  in  of  new  eras  in 
the  history  of  the  nations  to  whom  the  Jews  were  subject. 

We  propose  to  discuss  here  anew  the  data  recording  these 
changes  in  the  service  of  the  synagogue.  The  material  available 
refers  chiefly  to  the  two  great  centers  of  Jewry  at  the  beginning 
of  the  Middle  Ages,  to  Palestine  and  to  Babylon.  The  triumph 
of  Christianity  in  the  Roman  Empire  since  the  times  of  Con- 
stantine  the  Great  (312  C.  E.)  till  the  conquest  of  the  Holy  Land 
by  the  Arabs  (634-40  C.  E.)  had  as  a  sequel  the  rising  tide  of 
intolerance  towards  the  Jews  in  Palestine.  In  Babylon  a  change 
to  the  worse  in  the  condition  of  her  large  Jewry  set  in  towards  the 
end  of  the  reign  of  Yezdejerd  II  (454-5  C.  E.)  continuing  with 
interruptions  again  to  the  period  of  the  arrival  of  the  Arabs  (637 
C.  E.).  The  liturgy  of  the  synagogue  in  both  these  countries 
received  its  more  or  less  fixed  form  just  during  these  periods  when 
it  had  at  the  same  time  to  withstand  the  pressure  exerted  by  the 
ruling  religions  of  Christianity  and  Zoroastrianism  respectively. 
The  records  of  this  pressure  and  of  the  counteraction  on  the  part 
of  the  Jewish  spiritual  leaders  are  scanty  and  often  obscure.  They 
are  not  contemporaneous  but  date  chiefly  from  the  Gaonic  period 
when  both  Palestine  and  Babylon  were  already  under  Muslim 
sway.  Yet  they  evidently  are  more  or  less  based  on  trustworthy 


244  JACOB  MANN 

traditions  that  have  come  down  from  the  times  of  trial  and 
tribulation 

The  two  great  religious  persecutions  that  visited  the  Jewish 
people  in  Palestine  previously,  the  one  of  Antiochus  Epiphanes 
(168  B.  C.  E.  and  following)  and  the  other  of  Hadrian  (135-138 
C.  E.)  have  left  no  recorded  changes  in  the  liturgy1,  in  the  first 
instance,  and  only  a  few  cases,  in  the  second  one,  for  the  good 
reason  that  during  both  of  them  the  practice  of  Judaism  as  a 
whole  had  been  prohibited.  There  was  no  question  of  modifying 
or  eliminating  certain  features  of  the  liturgy  when  the  whole 
service  of  the  Temple,  in  the  former  case,  and  of  the  synagogue, 
in  the  second  one,  had  been  proscribed  as  a  part,  indeed  a  promi- 
nent one,  of  the  obnoxious  religion  of  Judaism.  Not  so  in  the 
periods  under  discussion  in  this  paper  when  Judaism  as  a  whole 
had  to  be  granted  the  right  to  existence  and  the  state  in  Byzan- 
tium and  in  Persia  respectively,  at  the  instigation  of  the  spokes- 
men of  the  ruling  faiths,  insisted  only  upon  the  elimination  of 
certain  objectionable  features,  which  it  had  construed  as  public 
challenges  on  the  part  of  the  Jews  to  the  doctrines  of  the  respec- 
tive religions  supreme  in  the  two  empires  then  containing  the 
predominant  part  of  the  Jewish  people. 

In  Babylon  these  objectionable  features  consisted  of  the 
emphatic  declaration  of  the  unity  of  God  (the  Shema')  as  against 
the  dualism  of  Zoroastrianism.  A  distinct  polemic  against  the 
latter  was  also  found  in  the  exalted  orations  of  Deutero-Isaiah 
that  were  used  in  the  Haftarot  (rryeraw  mom).  In  Palestine 
more  features  of  the  liturgy  found  offence  in  the  eyes  of  the  church 
upheld  by  the  Byzantine  government.  The  Shema',  the  Trisha- 
gion  (Kedushah),  the  'Amidah  (especially  the  twelfth  benediction 
known  as  D'yan  ro~a) ,  the  preachings  and  teachings  of  the  Rabbis 
(the  Deuterosis) — these  were  the  offensive  portions  which  the 

1  About  the  supposed  introduction  of  the  Haftarah  owing  to  Antiochus' pro- 
hibition of  the  reading  of  the  Torah,  see  infra,  p.  282.  About  the  change  in  the 
time  of  sounding  the  Shofar  on  Rosh  Hashanah,  stated  to  have  taken  place 
during  the  Hadrianic  persecutions,  see  infra,  p.  299  ff.,  and  about  the  rite  of 
Tephillin,  infra,  p.  296.  The  changes  in  several  religious  customs  owing  to  the 
dangers  (HMD)  during  the  Hadrianic  persecutions  are  outside  the  scope  of  this 
paper  which  deals  only  with  the  service  of  the  synagogue. 


CHANGES  IN  THE  DIVINE  SERVICE  245 

state  tried  to  eliminate  from  the  public  service  of  the  synagogue. 
These  points  will  be  discussed  here  seriatim  adding  for  complete- 
ness sake  other  details  of  the  divine  service  that  called  forth 
objections  in  the  Gentile  environment  in  which  the  Jews  were 
living. 

Since  our  data  are  not  contemporaneous  but  emanate  chiefly 
from  the  later  Gaonic  period  they  have  to  be  taken  with  great 
caution.  The  question  frequently  arises  whether  they  are  not  post 
eventum  explanations  of  liturgical  features  that  could  not  be 
accounted  for  otherwise  and  therefore  the  general  hypothesis  of 
having  been  due  to  ~FD»n  r\yv2  was  conveniently  advanced  as  their 
reason.  Yet  this  general  and  oft  repeated  tradition  of  changes 
in  the  liturgy  because  of  religious  persecutions  seems  to  be  well- 
grounded  and  it  would  be  hypercritical  to  dismiss  it  altogether 
as  unhistorical.  Anyhow  the  problem  deserves  to  be  traced  and 
examined  in  its  manifold  ramifications. 

I 
CHANGES  DUE  TO  THE  OPPOSITION  AGAINST  THE  SHEMA'. 

It  would  not  be  in  keeping  with  our  theme  to  discuss  here 
anew  the  origin  of  the  Shema'  in  the  service  of  the  synagogue  and 
to  trace  the  successive  stages  through  which  the  Shema'  was 
formed  into  a  composite  whole  consisting  of  three  Biblical  pass- 
ages (Deut.  6.4-9,  11.13-21  and  Numbers  15.37-41)  introduced 
and  concluded  by  benedictions  (see  Ber.  1.4)3  The  recital  of  the 
Shema'  twice  daily,  morning  and  evening,  was  already  an  old 
established  custom  in  the  first  century,  C.  E.,  still  before  the 
destruction  of  the  Second  Temple.  The  Shema'  assumed  its 
characteristic  significance  not  only  as  a  solemn  theological 
asseveration  of  monotheism  as  against  dualism,  trinity  or  poly- 
theism but  by  the  very  designation  of  its  first  section  (Deut. 

3  The  prototype  for  this  general  hypothesis  would  thus  be  the  passage  con- 
cerning the  change  in  the  time  of  sounding  the  Shofar  in  R.  H.  32b  mrj  ny»3 
ur  nis^on,  the  correct  reading  of  which  is  w  io0n  nj?»3  (cf.  Dikduke  Soferim, 
a.  1.).  See  infra,  p.  299,  note  124. 

i  For  the  existing  literature  on  this  problem  see  Elbogen,  Der  jud.  Gottes- 
diensdienst,  p.  16,  and  notes  (2nd  ed.)  pp.  513-515. 


246  JACOB  MANN 

6.4-9)  as  "the  acceptance  of  the  yoke  of  heaven" 
D'D»,  cf.  M.  Ber.  2.2,  Babli  13b,  14b)  the  Shema'  had  also  a 
political  connotation  as  a  challenge  to  the  yoke  of  Rome,  the 
wicked  mundane  rule.  The  third  section  with  its  concluding 
reference  to  the  redemption  from  Egypt  and  the  subsequent 
Geullah  benediction  kept  afresh  in  the  minds  of  the  people  the 
hope  of  the  ultimate  restoration  of  Israel  when  the  eschatological 
"kingdom  of  heaven"  would  become  supreme  on  earth. 

The  Talmudic  literature  records  the  recital  of  the  Shema' 
only  twice  daily  in  accordance  with  the  verse  in  Deut.  6.7  (~p32ai 
"|Qip3i,  cf.  Ber.  1.3:  nnoiy  DIN  'np  nyt?:n  a^w  DIN  'n»  ny^n). 
It  became  a  characteristic  token  of  Israel  that  declares  "the  unity 
of  God  twice  daily  with  love."4  Yet  in  the  post-Talmudic 
liturgy  that  has  come  down  to  us  the  first  verse  of  Shema'  recurs 
several  times  in  the  service  outside  the  scheduled  place  assigned 
to  the  Shema'  in  the  conjunction  with  the  Tefillah  of  Shaharit 
and  Ma'arib.  What  were  the  causes  of  these  insertions?  Some 
reasons  advanced  by  the  early  authorities  trace  these  insertions 
to  the  times  of  persecutions  (~F»!0n  nyp)  and  therefore  claim  our 
attention  here. 

1.  SHEMA'  IN  THE  SECTION  DIN  Nrp  o^iy^. 

The  portion  of  the  morning  service  preceding  "lOfcW  "P~o, 
which  was  usually  recited  by  the  individual  Jew  at  home  before 
proceeding  to  the  synagogue  for  the  public  worship,5  contains  the 
first  verse  of  Shema'.  In  the  Palestinian  ritual  it  is  introduced 


4  Thus  in  the  morning  prayer,  to  be  discussed  forthwith:  i«w  .  .  . 

'131  yov  DnniNi  ~\ov  n«  onn'Di  TOD  nv  ^33  onmto  npai  aij?  D'anym  D'0'3»D 
(this  is  the  reading  in  'Amram,  ed.  Fr.,  I,  51a,  but  Vitry,  p.  60,  has  100  D'trvDi 
;  in  Kedushah  of  Musaph  (to  be  discussed  farther  on,  p.  251  ff.),  ay  iirv1 
yaw  narma  D'oys  npai  aij?  100  ann'on  (the  phrase  nan«3  o^ys  was  at- 
tacked already  by  Ben  Baboi  (about  800  C.  E.),  see  infra,  p.  255,  note  26);  like- 
wise in  the  litany  of  Dim  Nim  we  read  DV  ^33  D'ays  -\ov  onn'on  DIN  iim.  See 
also  Cant.  R.  7.11:  'Ol  yov  D'nm«i  D'oys  ••nv  ia»  DHn'Di.  Cp.  further  S.  E.  R., 
pp.  13  and  15,  and  especially  infra,  notes  7  and  18. 

5  See  the  data  discussed  by  Mann,  H.  U.  C.  Annual,  II,  p.  273,  and  cf. 
also  the  account  of  Natan  Ha-Babli  (in  Neubauer,  Med.  Jew.  Chron.,  II,  83): 

-|na  ^nno  no»n  ]rm. 


CHANGES  IN  THE  DIVINE  SERVICE  247 

boldly  after  the  benediction  for  the  Torah  (Mann,  280,  293),  but 
in  the  Babylonian  rite  it  is  to  be  found  within  the  beautiful  sec- 
tion beginning  with  "inon  D'np  NT  DIN  KIT  D^iy1?  and  leading  up  to 
the  privilege  of  Israel  to  declare  the  unity  of  God  by  the  declara- 
tion of  the  Shema'.  This  verse  is  followed  by  a  significant  bene- 
diction emphasizing  the  sanctification  of  God's  name  in  public 
and  in  conclusion  the  prayer  for  the  restoration  of  Israel  is 
expressed  (see  the  version  in  'Amram,  ed.  Fr.,  I,  5 la).  The 
whole  section  was  evidently  known  to  the  author  of  Seder 
Eliyahu  Rabba  (c.  19,  ed.  Friedmann,  118)  where  it  is  cited  in  a 
greatly  shortened  form  due  to  the  copyists,  who  only  indicated 
its  beginning  and  its  end  (see  Friedmann's  notes,  a.  /.).  It  is 
questionable  whether  the  whole  section  was  originally  composed 
by  the  author  of  this  Midrashic  work,  as  it  is  frequently  assumed, 
because  he  introduces  it  with  the  formula  "HON  p'D.6  The  whole 
setting  of  this  section  suggests  a  time  of  religious  tribulation  and 
trial  when  the  declaration  of  the  unity  of  God  could  only  be  made 
in  secret  ("inD2),  viz.  in  the  home  of  the  individual  Jew  and  not  at 
the  public  worship.  The  benediction  praising  God  for  sanctifying 
His  name  in  public  (by  some  manifest  action  of  His)  significantly 
alludes  by  contrast  to  a  time  that  demanded  of  the  Jew  (a  mere 
human  being)  a  sacrifice  in  doing  this  publicly.  With  right  intui- 
tion R.  Benjamin  b.  Abraham  'Anav,  brother  of  the  author  of 
Shibbole  Ha-Lekef  (13th  century),  explains  that  the  author  of  S. 
E.  R.  referred  to  a  period  when  the  Shema'  could  not  be  recited 
at  the  public  worship  of  the  synagogue  and  hence  he  impressed 
upon  his  contemporaries  the  duty  of  acknowledging  the  kingdom 
of  heaven  privately.7 

6  The  text  there  omits  inoa  after  D'DP  NT  but  several  authorities  had  this 
significant  word  as  is  evident  from  the  discussion  in  *?'r\3V  to  be  cited  forthwith. 
Also  'Amram  has  it. 

7  Vmp,  ed.  Buber,  p.  6: 

1'rnn^  'JDD  "incn  D'DP  NT  DIN  NT  o^iy1?.  noi1?  K^P  V'nn  (Rashi)  h'\  no^p  ira-n 
l'D':3  '11  ...nnix1?  pinp  303  inx  ]wi  ...?'i^»n  «"?!  D'DP  NT  DIN  NT  iriD3  '3i  :noi^ 
N"?P  ni»  lop  hv  nn  -IM  N^X  irv^N  N3X  nox  thy  -inoa.  noi1?  'INHP  aro  i"i;  TIN 
ma^Q  hv;  orr^y  "zap1?  arm  DTnrn  p  hy  ,v^»u  J'NT  nvn^  I'Vis11  vn  N^I  yov  nN  Nnp^» 
nN  o'lrvai  'ID  or  "733  yov  Ton  TJB"?  TDI^»  UN  ]'3"m.  naiNP  Nin  |DP  -\h  y-\n  .nnoa  D'DP 
-IDIN  ]3  *?y\  ."13  "^NiP1  yov  (onmNi=read  'HDIND  noiNi  H3HN3  D'DJJD  -|or 
]'t»  p  hy  ,nno3  «"?«  D'3i3  znipo  ior  |'N  IDPH  ny»3P  'D1?  '3'3n3  IDP  npon 


248  JACOB  MANN 

Elgogen  (p.  91)  thinks  it  not  impossible  that  R.  Benjamin 
was  right  in  his  explanation  and  yet  regards  it  more  likely  that 
the  first  verse  of  Shema'  was  inserted  there  in  order  to  not  delay 
the  time  set  for  its  reading.  His  evidence  is  'Ittim  (p.  253) 8 
which,  in  dealing  with  Sabbath  morning,  recommends  that  the 
weekly  Sidrah  should  not  be  gone  over  at  home  before  proceeding 
to  the  synagogue  in  order  not  to  delay  tP'p  pr.  This  offers  no 
proof  whatever  for  Elbogen's  preferred  explanation  of  the  inser- 
tion of  Shema'  at  this  juncture.  But  there  is  another  statement 
(not  cited  by  Elbogen)  in  a  MS.  Munich  (given  by  Perles,  M.  G. 
W.  J.,  XXV,  370-71)  which  probably  emanates  from  the  author 
of  'Ittim,  R.  Judah  b.  Barzillai,  and  which  shows  that  this  argu- 
ment of  the  delay  of  o"p  pr  was  unknown  and  is  therefore  quoted 
as  "a  great  secret"  (^m  TiD).9  The  whole  passage  was  written 
by  a  critic  of  the  Piyyutim  and,  as  Judah  b.  Barzillai  was  such  a 
one  (as  is  evident  from  'Ittim,  p.  251  ff.),  we  may  suggest  that  our 
statement  is  to  be  found  in  the  missing  part  of  'Ittim  dealing  with 
the  early  morning  service.  Hence  in  the  MS.  the  beginning 
should  read  somewhat  like  'DI  ^m  TID  KTirp  TTID  [  ho  nsoa  NXD^!  . 

Be  that  as  it  may,  the  whole  argument  is  hardly  cogent  or 
logical.  On  the  basis  of  the  statement  in  Ber.  13b  a  reference  to 
DHXZD  nN'jp,  as  the  conclusion  of  the  Shema',  is  supposed  to  be 
found  in  the  lectionary  mn  where  Ps.  81.11  is  included.  But 
this  lectionary  was  recited  in  public  (Ttaxa)  after  ~\otw  -pin  and 
not  nrprra  as  the  Shema'  in  NIT  D^iy1?.  Moreover  the  whole 
lectionary  was  not  at  all  fixed  in  earlier  times.  It  is  missing  the 
Siddurim  of  'Amram  and  Sa'adya  (see  'Amram,  ed.  Fr.,  I,  70a, 
note  in  nisnan  Tips).  It  is  also  not  found  in  the  Palestinian 
ritual  though  Soferim  indicates  its  beginning  (see  Mann,  p.  276). 

All  these  passages,  quoted  by  R.  Benjamin,  were  evidently  in  his  copy  of  S.  E. 
R.  but  were  omitted  by  later  copyists.  Cp.  also  Friedm.,  KUD,  p.  80.  See 
also  Tanya,  ed.  Hurwitz,  p.  11. 

8  Thus  more  correctly  than  p.  249,  given  in  his  notes  (p.  527),  which  con- 
tains nothing  on  this  subject. 

»  D'anyoi  QOPD  uxz>  ir-i»N.  -\a-\b  snioip  D'D3n  upn  -p^»  ^ni  no  &mrr  vna 
cisci  .(see  Ber.  13b)  N'»jn  mirr  'n  hv  v'p  nr  yoen  DIIPD  "^to»'  s?oe>  cv  ^33  nnaiNi 
onxn  nx'X'  nornV  HO.  Nrrsoa  onxo  n«'X'i  NnyDPH  iina  (K'pjn  mirr  -i)  «im 
(Ps.  81.11)  "nnxD  yn«D  i"?j?on  'n  '3]«.  mon  'piDB3  up'n  (see  ibid.)  "niora 

.N'»:n  mm*  'no  nuwjna  on^»  n  1:013,  xbv  »"p  mp'D  D'OVBI  nnxva  nnx'  D«P 


CHANGES  IN  THE  DIVINE  SERVICE  249 

Following  therefore  the  more  probable  clue  of  R.  Benjamin 
b.  Abraham  'Anav  the  date  and  place  of  this  IDPH  nyz?  should  be 
considered.  Krauss  (Studien  z.  byz.-jiid.  Geschichte,  146-7) 
regards  in  a  haphazard  manner  S.  E.  R.  to  be  a  product  of  Byzan- 
tium and  the  religious  persecution,  alluded  to  in  S.  E.  R.,  is 
referred  to  those  of  "a  Leo  the  Isaurian  (723),  a  Basileos  (868)!" 
But  this  view  collapses  under  the  weight  of  the  historical  evidence 
at  our  disposal.  How  is  it  that  the  whole  passage  from  NH'  D^IJ?^ 
to  '"•  IDN  ODTy1?  D3'nu»  n«  '3W3  is  entirely  missing  in  the  Palestinian 
ritual  but  was  taken  over  in  the  Babylonian  Siddur?  Surely  the 
Holy  Land  was  nearer  to  Byzantium  than  the  distant  Babylon. 
Moreover  the  persecution  of  Basileos  (868)  can  hardly  be  con- 
sidered in  view  of  the  fact  that  'Amram,  whose  eighteen  years  of 
Gaonate  (the  first  ones  of  which  were  in  rivalry  to  R.  Na^ronai) 
fall  between  862-80,  already  has  the  whole  passage  as  a  regular 
part  of  his  Siddur  sent  to  Spain.  Needless  to  say  passages  from  a 
Midrash,  supposedly  written  in  Byzantium,  were  not  incorpor- 
ated by  the  Geonim  with  such  speed  in  their  ritual.  Moreover  a 
careful  examination  of  the  contents  of  S.  E.  R.  clearly  shows  that 
the  author  lived  for  a  considerable  time  in  Babylon  and  that  in  a 
good  deal  of  his  work  he  depicted  conditions  of  Jewish  life  in  that 
country  (see  Appendix  at  end  of  this  paper,  infra,  p.  302ff.).  He 
himself  was  arrested  during  a  raid  carried  out  by  the  Persian 
authorities  at  the  instigation  of  the  fanatical  Magians.  As  a 
result  of  this  arrest  the  author  records  a  disputation  of  his  with  a 
learned  Magian  on  controversial  matters  pertaining  to  Judaism 
and  Zoroastrianism.  The  dates  to  be  found  in  the  work,  which 
lead  down  to  the  10th  century,10  were  evidently  changed  by  the 
copyist  whose  text  became  the  prototype  of  our  texts,  to  suit  his 
own  time  when  he  had  prepared  his  transcript. 

10  Pp.  6-7:  ]no  KX'i  rvBon  nio'  hv  a^sh»  *yc  -pro  nayr  ir^y  oa:  me>  irnya 
n:r  HIND  yaro  nnv  leads  down  to  a  date  after  940  C.  E.  (4700  A.  M.)  and  p.  163: 
.-IIKD  yrn  "in  vray  lyi  o:rn  man)  a-m&oi  brings  us  to  968.  A  third  date  gives 
an  intermediate  year,  viz.  944  (p.  37:  D'ypn  rray  iyi  o^iyn  ma»  DVD  KXDJ 
a'jp  "\  '01  (i.e.  jubilees)  o'D^iy  nyaiNi.  The  first  date  rw  niND  yatfo  inr  is 
cited  in  Yalfcut  Makhiri  to  Zechariah  (14.7)  as  n:0  yaim  DTPI  niND  vv,  viz. 
904  (see  Poznanski,  Z.f.H.B.,  XIII,  132),  which  shows  clearly  how  the  copy- 
ists changed  the  dates  to  suit  their  own  times. 


250  JACOB  MANN 

The  passage  in  S.  E.  R.,  reflecting  the  religious  persecution 
under  discussion  with  regard  to  the  Shema',  rather  helps  us  to  fix 
the  time  of  redaction  of  the  book,  viz.  not  long  after  the  fanatical 
outbreak  against  the  Jews  in  Babylon  and  in  Persia  under  Yez- 
dejerd  II  (454-5)  during  which  the  recital  of  the  Shema'  was 
forbidden  as  being  a  challenge  to  Zoroastrianism,  as  is  expressly 
reported  by  the  Geonim  (see  infra,  p.  256  ff.)  in  connection 
with  the  Shema'  in  the  Kedushah.  The  arrest  of  the  author  (or 
redactor)  and  his  discussion  with  a  Magian  should  be  fixed  in  this 
time  of  trial  and  tribulation.  The  Jewish  authorities  of  the  time 
at  first  impressed  upon  their  coreligionists  the  duty  of  reciting  the 
Shema'  (at  least  the  first  verse)  privately  in  their  homes  before 
proceeding  to  the  synagogue  for  the  morning  service.  In  the 
course  of  the  religious  persecution  they  invented  also  the 
strategem  of  inserting  the  beginning  and  the  end  of  the  Shema' 
in  the  Kedushah.  The  whole  beautiful  section  from  NIT  cbiyh 
and  onwards  formed  an  impressive  setting  for  the  private  ac- 
knowledgment of  the  unity  of  God  and  His  kingdom.  The  author 
of  S.  E.  R.  quotes  it  as  an  anonymous  composition  of  the  Baby- 
lonian Rabbis  of  the  time  (nDN  p'O).  It  was,  however,  not 
taken  over  into  the  Palestinian  ritual,  though  the  first  verse  of 
Shema'  occurs  therein  before  ~IDNP  "[Ha,  either  as  a  later  com- 
promise with  the  Babylonian  custom  or  perhaps  as  a  reminiscence 
of  the  custom  of  R.  Judah  the  Patriarch. 

The  redaction  of  S.  E.  R.  not  long  after  455  renders  it  pretty 
certain  that  it  should  be  identified  with  ra~i  irrWt  TID  and  its  sup- 
plementary part  N^m  irr1™  TTD,  cited  in  Ket.  106a,  though  the 
story  related  there  connects  it  with  R.  'Anan,  the  contemporary 
of  R.  Naljman  b.  Jacob  (end  of  3rd  and  beginning  of  4th  cen- 
turies). The  author  preferred  to  remain  in  obscurity  citing 
several  episodes  and  statements  in  the  name  of  "Father"  Elijah 
(in'1?**  frON),  the  great  personality  in  Jewish  folklore  since 
Biblical  times.  The  legendary  relationship  between  Elijah  and 
R.  'Anan  was  seized  upon  by  the  Saboraim  in  the  6th  century  to 
attribute  to  the  latter  the  already  by  then  famous  work  Seder 
Eliyahu  Rabba  and  Zutta."  Yet  it  is  not  out  of  question  to 

11  In  the  story  in  Ket.  106a,  top,  the  phrase  in^Nl  no  rv1?  'jno  mm  seems 
to  be  a  Saboraic  gloss  to  explain  the  preceding  sentence  in'"?«  ^»'n  nin  ]:y  m 


CHANGES  IN  THE  DIVINE  SERVICE  251 

assume  that  there  were  known  in  Babylon  as  well  as  in  Palestine 
teachings  and  episodes  relating  to  Elijah  which  the  author, 
living  in  the  second  half  of  the  5th  century,  incorporated  into  his 
work  giving  it  the  peculiar  phraseology  and  form  that  render  it 
as  one  of  the  most  interesting  literary  productions  in  the  field  of 
Midrash.  The  reason  for  his  division  of  the  work  into  two  parts, 
Rabba  and  Zutta,  is  not  clear.  Who  knows  whether  he  himself 
did  not  use  the  legend  concerning  R.  'Anan  as  a  means  to  hide 
his  own  identity?  Hence  the  Saboraim  were  guided  by  genuine 
tradition  to  declare  the  work  to  contain  the  substance  of  Elijah's 
teachings  to  R.  'Anan.12 

2.  SHEMA'  IN  THE  KEDUSHAH. 

The  Kedushah  in  Musaph  on  Sabbaths  and  Festivals  in  the 
prevalent  rites  contains  the  insertion  of  the  Shema'  in  a  character- 
istic setting  which  again  recalls  a  time  of  aroused  religious  feeling 
owing  to  outside  opposition.  After  the  actual  Trishagion 
and  its  accompanying  verse  of  Ezek.  3.12  (which  will  be  discussed 
infra,  p.  261  ff.)  the  text  turns  abruptly  to  a  plea  for  God's  mercy 
on  the  people  that  declare  His  unity  daily,  morning  and  evening, 
"twice  with  love"  proclaiming  the  Shema'  (citing  the  first  verse). 
Then  comes  the  emphasis  that  only  "He  is  our  God,  our  Father, 
our  King,  our  Savior,""a  pleading  again  for  His  mercy  to 

n'3J  TINT  as  if  iri'^tn  "no  existed  even  before  R.  'Anan.  Likewise,  n'^  p'Dtn  ly 
-mo  seems  to  be  an  insertion  —  all  in  order  to  justify  the  Saboraic  identifi- 


cation Noir  irrN  -no  ,rm  WN  110  '-ID«T  ir»m. 

12  The  general  conclusions  are  given  here  reserving  further  discussion  of 
the  problem  of  S.E.R.  for  the  Appendix  (infra,  pp.  302-10). 

"a  The  juxtaposition  of  these  attributes  "Father,  King  and  Savior"  has 
evidently  a  polemical  emphasis  against  Christianity  which  designated  Jesus  by 
the  last  two  terms  besides  ascribing  to  him  divinity  (6(6s).  As  is  well-known, 
Jesus  is  styled  in  the  N.T.  King  (/SaaiXeus)  and  savior  (ffUTrjp).  In  the  well- 
known  hymn  irn^NJ  ]'K  we  have  also  the  juxtaposition  of  the  attributes  God, 
Lord,  King  and  Savior,  stressing  still  more  the  emphasis  against  Christianity 
which  designated  Jesus  as  lord  (Kvfttos).  This  hymn  is  evidently  modeled 
after  the  above  passage  in  the  Kedushah  and  perhaps  would  warrant  the  read- 
ing there  mrm  too  instead  of  U'3K.  The  hymn  is  found  in  the  Palestinian 
ritual  for  Saturday  night  with  the  proper  beginning  irn^NS  'D  (see  Mann,  pp. 
319,  324-5).  In  the  light  of  the  above  remarks  it  probably  dates  from  the 


252  JACOB  MANN 

become  manifest  by  the  redemption  of  Israel  when  His  divinity 
will  be  proclaimed  before  all  mankind,  and  concluding  with  the 
last  phrase  in  the  Shema',  viz.  wn!?N  v'1  ^N.  'Amram  (ed. 
Frumkin,  II,  50b)  briefly  indicates  this  insertion  :  TDIDI  ,-j1?  itfr  ins 
as1?  nvn1?,  I'B'DiD  BH  /^Nifc>'  yap.  ("?npn>  D'IDINI  ,"ranx3  a;ay£.  <p» 
'IDT  -prrp  nmm  ."Dim1™  'n  '»  D'n1?^1?  (see  also  I,  139b,  where  R. 
Natronai  Gaon  mentions  D'DyD  and  orbs1?  DsV  nvn1?).  The 
author  of  Pirke  de  R.  Eliezer  (c.  4,  end)  seems  to  allude  to  this 
enlarged  Kedushah  when  in  conjunction  with  the  Trishagion 
recited  by  the  angels  above  he  adds  :  crirro  Dnp  y  i«3  in«  'U  ^inr  i 
,"in«  'n  irn1™  'n  "TNIE^  yap.  D'IOINI  D'ny  DV  "?33  Tan  IOP 
D3n«  ^'^on  *D3'n^x  'n  ':«.  *7.s;ir  loy1?.^  The  author  of  this 


Midrash  probably  lived  in  Palestine  at  the  beginning  of  the  8th 
century  (as  will  be  shown  elsewhere). 

This  insertion  of  Shema'  into  the  Kedushah  formed  the  sub- 
ject of  a  discussion  already  in  the  early  Gaonic  period.  R. 
Yehudai,  Gaon  of  Sura  (c.  760  C.  E.),  is  the  earliest  authority 
mentioned  who  traced  it  to  a  persecution  in  Palestine  in  the  course 
of  which  both  the  Shema'  and  the  daily  Tefillah  were  proscribed 
by  the  government.  The  Jews  were  Only  permitted  to  assemble 
in  their  synagogues  on  Sabbath  morning  to  recite  and  to  intone 
the  Sabbath  'Amidah  with  the  Piyyutim  connected  therewith. 
As  a  subterfuge  the  Shema'  was  inserted  into  the  Kedushah,  viz. 
the  Hazzan  would  intone  the  beginning  and  the  end  of  the 
Shema'  in  such  a  manner  as  not  to  be  noticeable  to  the  officials 
watching  the  service  (see  also  infra,  p.  259,  note  32).  This  prohi- 
bition ended  with  the  overthrow  of  Byzantine  rule  in  Palestine 
in  consequence  of  the  arrival  of  the  Arabs  (634-40).  This 

Byzantine  period.  Who  knows  whether  its  composition  did  not  take  place  at 
about  the  same  time  as  the  passage  in  the  I£edushah?  Hence  the  hymn  has 
not  been  adopted  from  the  mystics  as  found  in  Hekhatot  R.  (c.  4,  beginning: 
wpV«  T»  'o  irwra  »B  .  .  .unVoD  'D,  see  Bloch,  M.G.W.J.,  XXXVII,  311)  but 
rather  the  author  of  this  mystical  tract  used  the  phraseology  of  this  hymn  in  a 
modified  form. 

13  R.  David  Lurya  in  his  commentary  (p.  lib,  note  62)  rightly  points  out 
that  the  concluding  phrase  "Who  redeems  you  from  all  trouble,"  alludes  to  the 
insertion  of  the  beginning  and  the  end  of  the  Shema'  into  the  Kedushah  in 
consequence  of  the  religious  oppression  which  involved  the  prohibition  of  the 
recital  of  the  Shema'. 


CHANGES  IN  THE  DIVINE  SERVICE  253 

historical  information  reads  in  the  words  of  Ben-Baboi,14  who 
recorded  it,  as  follows:  PN  '33  *7y  TOP  nn»  Vr  'NTirr  no  nox  pi 
mrw  ojj'1?  ]m«  ]TP:IQ  vm  .isi^srv  N^I  JJDP  rvnp  imp'  N1?^  hx-w 
17-rnyo  raea  rr-intza  D'IDIN  vm  ,irnnaya  te-ior1?!  lai1?  rasa 
rni^D  n"3pn  n'jop  rcsoyi  .DJINS  i^n  anai  D'Eny  vm  ,i8«pio3 
mp  Nip^i  2ormn3  pioy1?  oirvam  iwrVjRJip  i«3i  rvrrnn  " 
noipD3  2omin  ^"rsn  jip'ro  ioipD3  1131  131  N1?**  noi1?  TIDK 

22'pD3  2i-inm 
'p»3  "?"r3n  iip'ns  -mi 


'•»  A  substantial  portion  of  Ben-Baboi's  work,  known  as  'into  ]3i  MpTfl, 
has  been  published  by  Mann,  R.E.J.,  vol.  70,  129  ff.  (See  also  the  additional 
passage  given  by  J.  N.  Epstein,  ibid.,  vol.  75,  179  ff.).  Our  passage  is  found  on 
p.  133.  See  the  discussion  of  this  problem,  ibid.,  pp.  122-128,  which,  however, 
is  augmented  here  in  several  points. 

15  Evidently  because  the  Shema'  was  regarded  as  a  challenge  to  the  doc- 
trine of  the  trinity  and  the  daily  'Amidah  contained  D'ron  nsia  (12th  benedic- 
tion) with  its  reference  to  the  Christians  (a'ixi3^i)  as  is  evident  from  the  Pal- 
estinian version  of  the  'Amidah  (see  Schechter,  JQR,  X,  657,  and  Mann,  H. 
U.  C.  Annual,  II,  296. 

16  lat^i  is  not  a  dittography  of  TDI^I  but  refers  to  the  intonation  of  the 
nnoyo,  Piyyutim,  by  the  rjazzan.    See  notes  17  and  21. 

'?  nnnyo  denote,  as  J.  N.  Epstein  has  rightly  pointed  out  (R.E.J.,  vol. 
75,  183,  note  2),  the  Piyyutim  inserted  into  the  first  3  benedictions  of  the 
'Amidah  (as  born  out  by  'Amram,  ed.  Warsaw,  47b,  bottom:  iaim  fv  mri 
nrr'jDi  »ixn  n  vv  -ioyo  0npn  i^ani  HTIDI  pan).  But  nnoyo  can  also  be  Piy- 
yu^im  inserted  into  the  last  3  benedictions  of  'Amidah  as  is  evident  from 
the  passage  cited  in  note  21. 

18  1D103  does  not  mean  here  "at  Musaph,"  because  in  Palestine  the  Kedushah 
was  only  recited  at  the  Shaharit  service  (as  Ben-Baboi  emphasizes,  ibid.,  vol. 
70,  135),  but  denotes  "in  addition,"  viz.  as  an  insertion  similar  to  the  phrase- 
ology of  'Amram  (above,  p.  252)  nnn«3  O'Dyo  TOIDI  and  '101  DD1?  nvnV  ]'S'Dio  ZH. 

19  Read  D'^Kyof1. 

ao  It  is  characteristic  that  the  study  of  Torah  was  formerly,  under  Byzan- 
tium, proscribed.  This  refers  to  the  problem  of  the  Deuterosis  (discussed  infra.  , 
p.  281)  and  hence  the  Piyyu^im  (nnoyo)  would  contain  the  very  elements  of  the 
Deuterosis,  viz.  the  Aggadic  interpretation  of  the  Bible  (called  here  mm)  and 
also  the  Halakhic  instruction  (called  here  inni  IIDN). 

"  Cf.  Ben-Baboi's  elaboration  of  this  point  (ibid.,  p.  130): 
nryo  ]DV  "701  ,nimro<  07mi  nin^m  »?r3  rmm  Trim 


.13 

"    =DDlpD3. 
23    =]DlpQ3. 


254  JACOB  MANN 

R.  Yehudai's  account  no  doubt  refers  to  the  time  from  629 
and  onwards  when  Heraclius,  on  his  reconquest  of  Palestine  from 
the  Persians,  broke  his  promise  given  to  the  Jewish  leaders  to 
grant  the  Jews  amnesty  for  their  having  aided  the  Persians 
during  their  invasion  and  occupation  of  the  Holy  Land  (614-628) 
and  allowed  revengeful  excesses  to  be  perpetrated  on  them.2* 
The  divine  service  of  the  synagogue  was  restricted  in  every  way. 
Services  on  week  days  were  prohibited  because  of  the  Shema' 
and  the  12th  benediction  of  the  'Amidah.  The  teachings  and 
preachings'  of  the  Rabbis,  known  as  Deuterdsis,  proscribed 
already  since  Justinian's  famous  novella  of  553  (see  infra,  p. 
279ff.),  could  not  be  given  to  the  people  assembled  in  the  syna- 
gogues on  Sabbaths.  But  the  Piyyutim  had  already  become  a 
substitute  for  the  Deuterosis  and  these  were  permitted  to  be 
recited  and  intoned  on  mornings  of  Sabbaths  and  Festivals,  fol- 
lowed no  doubt  by  the  reading  of  the  Torah  but  without  the 
sermons  of  the  Rabbis.  It  is  rather  strange  that  the  Trishagion 
was  at  all  allowed  to  be  recited  in  view  of  the  reports  of  its  pro- 
scription because  of  its  interpretation  by  Christian  theology  to 
denote  the  Trinity  (as  discussed  infra,  p.  263ff.).  But  it  seems  that 
the  Trishagion  by  itself  was  not  proscribed  but  only  when  with 
its  Targumic  paraphrase  it  had  a  distinct  polemical  emphasis 
against  the  doctrines  of  Christianity  (as  shown  infra,  p.  266  ff.). 
However,  it  may  be  that  the  expanded  Kedushah  also  formed  a 
part  of  the  Piyyutim  whose  very  origin  is  stated  to  have  been  a 
stratagem  whereby  to  outwit  the  authorities  in  their  prohibition 
of  the  Deuterosis. 

This  whole  limitation  of  the  divine  service  of  the  synagogue 
need  not  have  been  an  innovation  of  Heraclius  but  rather  the 
reinforcement  of  the  old  intolerant  interference  with  the  Jewish 
service  that  had  become  especially  rigorous  since  the  time  of 
Justinian.  It  could  not  be  carried  out  during  the  occupation  of 
the  country  by  the  Persians  but  after  the  reconquest  it  asserted 
itself  anew.  R.Yehudai,  living  about  120  years  after  the  conquest 
of  the  Holy  Land  by  the  Arabs,  had  naturally  a  more  direct 
tradition  about  conditions  prevailing  there  during  the  last  years 

a«  See  Graetz,  Geschichte,  v  (4th  edition),  pp.  30  ff.  and  414  ff. 


CHANGES  IN  THE  DIVINE  SERVICE  255 

of  the  Byzantine  regime.  He  demanded  the  elimination  of  the 
Shema'  from  the  Kedushah  in  the  Shaharit  'Amidah  of  the  Pales- 
tinian ritual,  now  that  under  Muhammedan  rule  the  Shema'  in 
its  entirety  had  returned  to  its  proper  place  in  the  Shaharit  ser- 
vice on  Sabbaths  and  Festivals  prior  to  the  'Amidah.  R.  Yehu- 
dai's  protest  was  of  no  avail  nor  was  the  vigorous  denouncement 
of  this  item  in  the  liturgy  by  Ben-Baboi  (beginning  of  9th  cen- 
tury), a  disciple  of  Rabah  who  in  his  turn  sat  at  the  feet  of  Yehu- 
dai  Gaon.25  Ben-Baboi  seemingly  failed  to  extend  his  opposition 
to  the  Shema'  in  the  Musaph  Kedushah,  prevalent  in  his  own 
country  Babylon  (to  be  discussed  forthwith),  because  perhaps 
this  insertion,  preserved  as  a  memorial  of  the  times  of  religious 
persecution  in  Babylon  under  the  Persians,  was  not  found  to  be 
so  objectionable  at  Musaph  which  formed  a  sort  of  a  separate 
service  after  the  reading  of  the  Torah  and  the  Prophets.  But  it 
may  be  that  he  looked  with  disfavor  also  on  the  Babylonian 
custom  as  the  logical  conclusion  would  be  from  the  passage  cited 
above  (note  25).  However,  he  denounces  the  phrase  mnN3  D'oyD 
as  containing  a  boastful  complaint  before  God — a  rather  cantank- 
erous remark.26  In  spite  of  Ben-Baboi's  attack  the  Palestinian 
ritual  adhered  to  its  old  custom  except  that  in  Jerusalem  and  in 
other  Palestinian  cities,  where  Babylonian  Jews  had  settled,  the 
Kedushah  (whether  with  or  without  Shema'  is  not  clear)  became 
a  daily  feature  of  the  service  and  probably  also  of  Musaph  on 
Sabbaths  and  Festivals — this  concession  being  granted  only 
after  dispute  and  dissension.27  It  is  doubtful  whether  ultimately 

*  REJ,  vol.  70,  p.  134: 

':sa  "?'on  up'nr  impo  t&\  my  N"?  «in  T«»  -p^a'i1?  pnp  j'3  yav  ]nai«y  nr  i'3t?  bo 
a«   .iis^nn  pi  ruron  p  13^3  n^yi  nnntp  xbx  yov  nnp  «np^  ^'rsn  up'n  t&v 
.'i3i  Kin  ]i»xn  piDD  yov  jvnp  np'j?  ,IDI«  Ninr>  prtn  pios  yov  :im«  nrm 
26  Ibid.:  r\hyo  'D^»3  inyi  D'io3  Nina*  "ranio  D'oyo.  onoiKp  nr  ]'3&  bo  Tiyi 
n^yo  's!?3  inyn  o'loa  nine  or  ^33  D'oys  a'-im«  u»»  noi«i  a'ynnoi.   Yet  in  the 
time  of  R.  Hai  this  phrase  was  omitted  at  his  school  in  Bagdad  (see  the  pass- 
ages discussed  by  Mann,  REJ.,  vol.  70,  123,  note  1).    See  also  Marmorstein, 
ibid.,  vol.  73,  pp.  98-9,  and  my  remarks,  vol.  74,  p.  111. 

a7  Ibid.,  p.  135:  -p^o'i1?  pnp  ]'3  yov  onnw  ]'«»  K'n  -too  rupni  K'n  pp  -j1?  yin 
mo'  ^31  nm'D3i  ]'Boioa  "?3K  ,i3"73  n3p  bv  nnn»  nlvDm  K*?K 
io  D'D'3  i«  n3»3  N"?«  yn»i  »np  "?«n»'  yn«3  anow  ]'«  vzoy  ly 
:  nano 


256  JACOB  MANN 

the  Palestinian  ritual  ever  became  uniform  in  this  respect  with 
the  Babylonian  rite. 

On  the  other  hand  Gaonic  reports  of  the  9th  century  trace 
the  insertion  of  Shema'  in  the  Kedushah  to  a  prohibition  of 
Yezdejerd  II.  The  declaration  of  the  unity  of  God  was  obnoxious 
to  the  ruling  religion  of  Zoroastrianism  with  its  dualistic  concep- 
tion of  the  deity.  Hence  the  government  forbade  the  reading  of 
the  Shema'  in  its  usual  place  in  the  service.  As  a  subterfuge  the 
Hazzan  would  intone  in  an  unnoticeable  manner  (ny^nra)  the 
first  verse  of  Shema'  as  well  as  the  conclusion  (as'nV.x  'n  '3«) 
within  the  Kedushah  of  every  service,  both  on  week  days  and  on 
Sabbaths  and  festivals.  When  this  decree  was  annulled  and 
the  Shema'  could  again  be  fully  recited  at  its  proper  place,  the 
insertion  in  the  Kedushah  was  removed  from  all  the  services  and 
was  only  retained  at  the  Musaph  of  Sabbaths  and  Festivals  as  a 
memorial  of  the  persecution.  Sar  Shalom,  Gaon  of  Sura  (849-53)  , 
in  giving  substantially  the  above  account,  speaks  only  in  a  general 
way  of  a  persecution  prohibiting  the  Shema'.28  That  he  referred 
only  to  the  situation  in  Babylon  is  evident  from  the  fact  that  the 
daily  'Amidah  could  be  recited  because  it  would  offer  no  objection 
to  the  Magians  whereas  in  Palestine  it  had  been  proscribed  owing 
to  the  benediction  against  heretics  (a'ron  n  J~a)  ,  as  stated  above 
(p.  254).  But  anonymous  Gaonic  responsa,  cited  in  Shibbole 
Halleket,29  give  a  more  specific  description  of  the  manner  of  the 


cm  ]'NP  ?NIB>'  ptui?  nn'jn  DUHD  ixeo  73N  ,nv  ?33  nernp 
13^3  D'31D  D'D'31  n3P3  «"?«  imp.  This  custom  is  also  borne  out  by  a  Gaonic 
responsum  (cited  in  Tosafot,  Sanh.  37b)  which  gives  an  Aggadic  explanation 
for  it  found  in  i^O'i  emo  (see  REJ.,  vol.  70,  p.  127,  note  2). 

28  Sar  Shalom's  responsum  is  quoted  first  in  'Amram,  ed.  Fr.,  1,  139b,and  is 
repeated  in  Vitry,  p.  99,  ''zn  ino,  p.  252,  par.  504,  'Ittim,  280-81,  r'lN,  II,  lie 
(22a).   The  parallel  in  Pardes,  ed.    Ehrenreich,  p.  312,  will  be  discussed  infra. 
p.  259.    The  general  reference  to  the  persecution  is,  on'tow  "?y  mu  mrusp  'JDD 
1D1N  rrn  np'y  ^3  erp  nnp1?  nVz'  (a  well-known  euphemism  for  Israel)  *7tnz>'  "?» 
'01  nara  ]'3  'jim  ]'a  rvinen  n!?sn  "733  rrpoys  ny"73-3  im  rrVp  nmN.    Sar 
Shalom  speaks  here  only  of  the  insertion  of  the  Shema'  in  the  Kedushah  of 
Shaharit  but  the  responsa,  discussed  in  next  note,  clearly  mention  this  insertion 
at  every  service. 

29  Ed.  Buber,  p.  38:  nuipm  'rmsa  ?n»np3  ash  nvnVi  troys  nm1?  in:  n 
(  r  .y  DP>  HOP  nt«np  i«ip'  xbv  DIB  I^»D  <  r.  mnt')  TU 

,nnn»3  ]'3  (r.  nrnp>  nemp  hi  ]'3  iy?3n^»  upn  Jinn 


CHANGES  IN  THE  DIVINE  SERVICE  257 

subterfuge  to  outwit  the  authorities  by  the  insertion  of  Shema' 
into  Kedushah  and  also  by  mentioning  the  occasion  as  due  to  the 
fanaticism  of  Yezdejerd  II. 

This  ruler  (438  or  439-457)  was  notorious  for  his  intolerance 
both  towards  Jews  and  Christians.  Several  sources  of  the  Gaonic 
period  refer  to  a  persecution  against  the  Jews  about  454-5  which 
involved  their  being  compelled  to  desecrate  the  Sabbath.30  His 
death  is  reported  to  have  been  caused  by  the  bite  of  a  snake.  R. 
Nahman  mentioned  in  the  above  responsum  is  the  Amora  R. 
Nahman  b.  Huna,  head  of  the  school  of  Sura,  whose  death  is 
reported  to  have  taken  place  at  about  the  time  when  Yezde- 
jerd's  persecution  began.  Hence  Halevy  may  be  right  in  suggest- 
ing (Tnn,  III,  93)  to  emend  pro  an  niD'3»  into  pro  ai  niaa*  in 
accordance  with  the  report  of  Sherira  Gaon  and  others.  Our 
responsum  adds  another  detail  of  the  persecution,  viz.  the  pro- 
hibition of  the  Shema'  and  the  subterfuge  of  its  insertion  in  the 
Kedushah.  Yezdejerd's  death  in  457  only  brought  a  temporary 
respite  for  the  Jews.  The  rule  of  his  son  Peroz  (459-484)  was 
fraught  with  still  more  severe  trials  resulting  (especially  from 
469-70  and  onwards)  in  the  closing  of  all  schools  and  synagogues 


:«s'D  ,y  DP  :Npn  tny^an  'KDI  .313  ora  ]'ai  napa  ]'ai  ^ina  ]'3  .nmoa  j'a  ,10133  ]'3 
ippai  .npirnn  'DD  yop  nanpn  vbv  '13  ?ny^ana  n-miK1?  mip'rt  no^i  .na'n^n  'n  '3« 
133&D  n'33>  uapo  rrai  -\hon  <r.  Tint')  TUTT  y^ai  ovn  'xna  pn  K3i  D'apn  ]D  D'orn 
npboh  iz?pai  n'omsa  njp'ns  yor  hy  IDTDI  mon  hy  I'^ono  vm  mnn  nVaai  (r. 
"703:  tb  :tnn  im«ap  o'D3n  not*  ,moi«^  K^7 
3i  ]'DDIDH  nV'sna  nm«  j?3p:  «*?«  nnn1?  o:n 
ma'p'  'nP3  JHJD  pi  ,^3  yor.  Cp.  also  the  passage  from  mjnxpon  'D,  cited  in  n«, 
I.e.,  which  also  speaks  of  the  original  insertion  of  Shema'  in  the  Kedushah  at 
every  service  (Krn^xi  Kni1?*  ^ss)  and  not  only  at  Shaharit. 

30  The  primary  account  is  in  Sherira  's  letter  (ed.  Lewin,  p.  94):  nnnai 
«n3p  '^>iB3^  i-inr  im  KIDP  !?B:I  (454/5  Sel.  =)  Torn  DIPS  3'3Pi  win  an  na  ]nm  ai 
»nn  n'^y  n'V'^a  Kin  i'i3  KPTP  »n'Ki  Kn';yn  ]m  nni. 

Another  version  adds:  rvmn  n^csai  rv33PD  ]D  my^»3i.  Cp.  further  Sherira's 
remark,  ibid.,  p.  96.  There  are  several  variants  as  to  the  date  but  the  above 
figure  seems  to  be  the  most  correct  one.  Cf.  further  the  data  given  in  the 
several  versions  of  Kan  o'jiy  -no  and  D'K-IIDKI  D'Kn  -no  (in  Neub.,  Med.  Jew. 
Chron.,  I,  177,  184;  II,  246,  247,  bottom;  Marx,  Lewy  Festschrift,  Hebrew 
part,  p.  172).  Also  a  Genizah  fragment  in  Cambridge  (T.  S.  8  K  22.11)  reads: 
r.3!?n  HK  ^n1?  irnuK  ^y  o"mD  -i"?o  mnr  nm  KJIH  an  p  pm  an  IDKJ  TDPH  n». 

About  the  date  see  also  Rappaport,  ;-^o  -\-\y  (ed.  Warsaw,  I,  71  f.)  and  cf. 
Schorr,  pi^nn,  II,  120. 


258  JACOB  MANN 

and  in  kidnapping  the  Jewish  youth  by  the  Magians  to  initiate 
them  into  the  religion  of  Zoroaster.  And  then  the  movement  of 
the  reformer  Mazdak,  which  had  its  chief  seat  in  Babylon,  only 
added  to  the  oppression  of  the  Jews  till  its  overthrow  in  about 
528.31  We  may  therefore  assume  that  even  when  the  Jews  were 
allowed  during  these  years  of  intermittent  religious  intolerance  to 
meet  for  public  service  they  could  not  openly  proclaim  their 
doctrine  of  the  unity  of  God  and  had  to  make  use  of  the  subter- 
fuge of  inserting  it  in  the  Kedushah.  Indeed,  Sherira  Gaon  speaks 
of  years  of  persecutions  and  troubles  right  down  to  the  close  of 
Persian  period  (ed.  Lewin,  p.  99:  rro^D  *]1D3  nnsi  TOP  'J»  pm 
'i3i  i'32>  no3  iy  Nm'nD  '3inNi  'pis  yapa1?  ^hy  nn  «*?i  CTDIS)  . 
Hence  the  freedom  of  reciting  of  the  Shema'  fully  at  its  proper 
place  was  probably  not  regained  by  the  Jews  in  Babylon  till  the 
arrival  of  the  Arabs  and  not  immediately  after  the  death  of 
Yezdejerd  II,  as  the  above  mentioned  responsa  would  seem  to 
indicate. 

We  have  thus  two  parallel  accounts  about  this  change  in  the 
liturgy  referring  to  persecutions  both  in  Babylon  and  in  Palestine. 
The  one  in  Babylon  seems  to  have  been  the  earlier  one.  Byzan- 
tium, copying  its  example  from  the  Magian-ridden  government  of 
Persia,  probably  began  to  interfere  with  the  Jewish  divine  service 
since  the  times  of  Justinian.  The  Jews  in  Palestine  then  made  use 
of  the  same  stratagem  of  inserting  the  Shema'  into  the  Kedushah 
as  their  Babylonian  brethren  did  before  them.  With  the  begin- 
ning of  the  era  of  freedom  under  Muslim  rule,  however,  this 
innovation  was  relegated  in  Babylon  only  to  the  Musaph  service  on 
Sabbaths  and  Festivals,  whereas  in  Palestine  it  remained  in  the 
Shaharit  service  also  on  these  days  since  the  Kedushah  was  not 
recited  there  on  weekdays.  In  Babylon  too  the  prohibition  of  the 
Shema'  was  the  cause  for  its  insertion  into  the  passage  D^iy1? 
DIN  NIT  (as  discussed  above  p.  249  ff.). 

In  our  analysis  of  the  accounts  we  have  endeavored  to  sepa- 
rate the  data  relating  to  Palestine  and  Babylon  respectively  in 

JJ  The  troubles  of  the  Babylonian  Jews  under  Peroz  (Njrzn  tn'fl)  and  in 
consequence  of  Mazdak's  reforms  are  well  known.  See  also  Noldeke,  Aufsatze 
zur  pers.  Gesch.,  pp.  106-7,  109,  112-14,  and  Tabari,  pp.  118,  note  4,  141  ff., 
162  ff.,  455  ff.,  465. 


CHANGES  IN  THE  DIVINE  SERVICE  259 

order  to  ascertain  their  historical  veracity.  Confusion  has  been 
caused  by  the  passage  in  Pardes  (ed.  Ehrenhreich,  p.  31  2)^  where, 
inside  the  responsum  of  Sar  Shalom,  Rashi  inserted  a  gloss,  which 
was  a  reminiscence  of  the  prohibition  in  Palestine,  whereas  Sar 
Shalom  no  doubt  dealt  with  the  one  in  Babylon  (as  demonstrated 
above,  p.  256).  This  whole  reminiscence  is  connected  with  the 
obstacle  placed  before  the  Jews  in  Palestine  to  recite  the  Trisha- 
gion  (as  will  be  discussed  infra,  p.  267  ff.).  Halberstam  OIT^, 
VI,  1868,  pp.  128-130)  was  on  the  right  track  in  endeavoring  to 
separate  the  various  accounts  and  yet  Graetz  (M.  G.  W.  J.,  1887, 
550  ff.)  follows  entirely  the  version  as  given  in  Pardes,  without 
considering  at  all  Halberstam's  data,  and  Krauss  (I.e.,  33-34) 
certainly  added  nothing  to  the  elucidation  of  the  problem.  Our 
above  analysis,"  based  on  all  the  reports  now  available,  enables  us 
to  comprehend  better  the  occasions  that  gave  rise  to  the  insertion 
of  the  Shema'  into  the  Kedushah.  Of  course  all  the  reports  could 
be  discredited  by  the  hypercritical  argument  of  convenient  and 
late  allusions  to  the  general  hypothesis  of  notpn  nyp.  But  as  long 
as  no  other  contemporaneous  explanation  of  this  liturgical 
problem  is  available  the  later  Gaonic  reports  should  be  accepted 
as  furnishing  us  with  a  more  or  less  reliable  tradition. 

3.  SHEMA'  AT  THE  TAKING  OUT  OF  THE  SCROLL. 

The  custom  of  reciting  the  first  verse  of  Shema'  at  the 
taking  out  of  the  Scroll  is  mentioned  first  in  Soferim  14.8  ff.34 
The  whole  passage  there  makes  it  evident  that  in  the  ritual  of 

&  After  m'oya  nylnns  <0'p>  moiN  rvn  p'&  we  read:  nnoiK  vn  nu'xn  ^31 
.c'yna  vni  o'jvn  oy  nanrw  nxun  (pun  on  H'D^n>  wo-in  on  ]'ron  ira'  N^P  eri^a 
D'3,iiNn  '3  ,Vipa  D'D»  rroVo  (insert  n^3p>  nm^  D'^i3'  vn  xh  tnon  ^'3031  ,-uh 
y3i«  into  ,nnp^  n»r  my»  yaix  ly  iyr  '3  my»  yaiNi  niyp  v^v  iy  DP  O'ITIDD  rn 
is  it)  nsmp  onoin  vm  insai  nnoa  in'  D'soxno  V«n»'i  o'a^in  D'anisn  vn  myp 
anoiN  vn  n»npn  iinai  (viz.  m'oyi  n«mp>  n»np  onmKi  .I'^Vonoi  (tnxin  nsnp 
.npnpa  v»3y  nnmN  i:«»  'SD  "?3n  "131  nanto  c'oys. 

About  Rashi's  mention  of  these  "watchers"  (detectives)  in  the  synagogues  see 
also  infra,  pp.  259,  with  regard  to  the  Kedushah  itself,  and  p.  299,  with  regard 
to  the  blowing  of  the  Shofar. 

«  See  also  Mann,  REJ.,  vol.  70,  p.  125,  note  1. 


'3'n  .mi.i  nso  *?v  yoca  ?noK  yov  ir  'N3  .yor     y  DIID  «in  «'3)3 

3'nto    ,-]n'3  '3»v  npi«  Kviz.  TODD™    nms 


260  JACOB  MANN 

the  author  of  Soferim  the  taking  out  of  the  Scroll  was  the  occasion 
of  a  solemn  ceremony  including  the  proclamation  of  God's  unity 
and  emphasizing  the  Trishagion  in  the  same  sense.  The  com- 
bination of  the  Trishagion  with  the  Shema'  had  clearly  a  polemi- 
cal point  against  Christianity  (as  will  be  shown  infra,  p.  270  ff.). 
It  is  difficult  to  ascertain  when  and  where  this  custom  arose.  If 
the  ritual  of  Soferim  reflects  that  of  Palestine,  which  is  not  always 
the  case,  then  this  whole  custom  goes  back  to  an  early  time  before 
Christian  Byzantium  censored  the  divine  service  of  the  syna- 
gogue. It  may  be  taken  for  granted  that  when  the  state  objected 
to  the  reading  of  the  Shema'  altogether  the  ceremony  of  n"D  JiNXin 
had  to  be  curtailed  omitting  at  least  the  first  verse  of  Shema' 
and  the  following  Trishagion.  The  very  reading  of  the  Shema'  in 
this  connection  was  based  upon  a  novel  interpretation  of  the 
Mishnah  (Meg.  4.5  :  yap  hy  DTIS  tfin  «'an  -roson)  which  seems 
to  have  found  little  acceptance,  the  author  of  Soferim  himself 
mentioning  the  usual  explanation  that  the  Shema'  there  meant 
the  regular  Shema'  of  Shaharit  (14.13:  "IDN'P  yntP  hy  oils  N"1! 
n&npl  Tl«  "GCV,  i.  e.  Kedushah  of  Yoser!)35  The  very  fact  that 
Shema'  at  n"D  ntfnn  is  connected  with  the  Maftir  shows  that  it 
was  only  done  on  Sabbaths  and  Festivals.  The  custom  originally 
spread  to  Italy  only  for  the  three  Festivals  but  Abraham,  the 
father  of  the  author  of  V"raB>,  introduced  it  for  all  Sabbaths  and 
Festivals.36  From  there  it  was  adopted  in  Bohemia  (]y»  jnN) 
but  not  in  western  Germany  which  in  this  respect  was  alike  to 
the  French  ritual  where  it  is  missing.37  Also  the  Spanish  ritual 

minn  rm  TDSDH  rniNi  (viz.  ^a'nn  bw  0:33  TD  (citing  several  verses)  ".31  '"• 

.  .  .DYI^N  triN  now  -mm   .mrm  miN  piy  oyn  INI  no'yia  |iz>Nin  pins  .  .  .yoe>  now 

.'JIN  '"•'7  iVnaai  nv*?v  ]»iin"  iV«ai  ^>NIZ>'  yoioa  minn  HK 

«  See  Muller's  note  25  on  p.  190. 

#  ^"naip  ed.  Buber,  p.  56,  par.  77: 


13  nnp>  n"o  ]'«'xio»a  o"vi 
yov  ,0'p^iy  *73 


n»pi  Tax  niia  nxi]  nain  n»m  ,TTN'I  mm    nv  ny  o'ri  nirgj  annpa 


,'iai  onsio  'DD3  iyoi  IDD  I:NXDI  ,jn:an 
37  Or  Zaru'a,  II,  19a:  noi«i  ^'p  *?'nna  e>' 
on  Vipa  'm«i  nnio  n'1?  namn  n'o 
a'nKi  ,'ia  mnx  T,a^n  ]'3iyi  irn^n  irm  noix  airi  .mnn  nnsn 


CHANGES  IN  THE  DIVINE  SERVICE  261 

omits  the  Shema'  at  the  taking  out  of  the  Scroll  because  it  has 
not  been  mentioned  by  'Amram  whose  Siddur  became  basic  for 
Spain.  We  have  thus  a  remnant  of  a  polemical  asseveration  of 
the  Monotheistic  doctrines  of  Judaism  limited  to  a  certain  time 
in  Palestine  and  adopted  only  by  a  small  part  of  the  diaspora, 
probably  only  after  its  re-insertion  in  Palestine  with  the  conquest 
of  the  Arabs. 

4.  SHEMA  IN  MA'ARIB. 

It  is  not  recorded  what  substitute  for  the  Shema'  in  Ma'arib, 
which  must  have  also  been  proscribed  both  in  Babylon  and  in 
Palestine  respectively  just  as  in  Shaharit,  the  Jewish  authorities 
found  it  appropriate  to  suggest  to  the  people  needing  guidance  in 
the  times  of  trial  and  intolerance.  However,  it  is  significant  that 
in  the  Palestinian  ritual  for  2>"xio  there  is  a  section  of  Tahanunim 
at  end  of  Ma'arib  service  including  the  first  verse  of  Shema'  fol- 
lowed by  100  N~nn  amp  irin«  "?n3  irn^N  inx  just  as  is  the  case 
with  the  insertion  of  Shema'  before  ~IDSP  "|i"n  in  the  same  ritual 
(see  Mann,  p.  324,  and  cp.  pp.  281  and  319).  Who  knows  whether 
this  whole  liturgy  did  not  originate  at  the  time  when  the  regular 
Shema'  of  Ma'arib  was  forbidden  in  Palestine  and  hence  it  was 
recited  privately  and  later  on  it  was  retained  in  the  public  service? 
However,  in  the  Babylonian  and  in  other  rituals  it  is  entirely 
missing  though  some  sort  of  Taljanun  accompanied  by  Q'sx  nV'SJ 
was  permitted  by  Sar  Shalom  Gaon  (see  'Amram,  ed.  Fr.,  I,  193b, 
top,  cf.  also  Elbogen,  105-6).  The  custom  of  Shema'  at  bedtime 
(nDDn  hy  E>"p)  does  not  seem  to  bear  on  the  problem  discussed  in 
this  paper  and  therefore  it  will  not  be  considered  here  (see 
Ginzberg,  Geon.  I,  135  ff.,  and  Mann,  287-88). 

II 
CHANGES  DUE  TO  THE  OPPOSITION  AGAINST  THE  KEDUSHAH 

(TRISHAGION). 

1.  The  Trishagion  was  invested  with  much  solemity  in  the 
divine  service  of  the  synagogue.  Isaiah's  majestic  imagery  of  the 

'DIXI  n'o  N'xiai  vip  TOW  nV'sn  y'v  tours  N^N  nr  jnao  or6  TN  oiri  ':ai  . .  ."n  TIN 
or1?  DJI  rmn  o'piDD  I'oio  avhv  «"?»  iHn:o^  -\co  w>  ansio  '0021  "3  VIN  'n^>  i"?i3 
.ann  'vt  rmnpn  -irw^i  muo1?  yo&oi    .a'pioon  I^K  *?D  naiK  rvn  TUDonp  yovo 
The  last  deduction  is  evidently  incorrect. 


262  JACOB  MANN 

angels  proclaiming  God's  holiness  three  times  in  succession  (ch. 
6.3)  suggested  to  have  this  sanctification  proclaimed  also  on 
earth  in  the  synagogue  of  Israel.  To  this  there  was  added  the 
sentence  which  Ezekiel  during  his  vision  heard  the  beings  of  the 
Chariot  proclaim  in  eulogy  of  God  (ch.  3.12).  The  mystically 
inclined  in  Israel  used  this  idea  of  the  parallel  sanctification  of 
God  both  on  high  and  on  earth  to  weave  around  it  dramatic 
fancies  depicting  the  great  stir  caused  among  the  heavenly  hosts 
when  Israel  pronounced  the  Trishagion.  The  words  of  God's 
sanctification  uttered  by  Israel  in  its  synagogues  became  the 
material  out  of  which  the  angels  on  high  were  weaving  a  crown 
to  be  placed  on  the  head  of  the  Creator  (cf.  "im  if?  urr  inn). 
Already  in  Hullin  91b,  bottom,  the  Kedushah  of  the  angels  is 
stated  to  be  dependent  on  the  Kedushah  of  Israel  (so  in  MS. 
Munich:  ntDD1?  nT»  ^Nitf'  raswv  iy  rbynh  rrvv  pois  errta  i'Ni)."a 
Three  groups  of  angels  are  supposed  to  take  their  turn  daily  when 
reciting  the  Trishagion,  the  first  one  starting  with  Sanctus,  the 
second  repeating  it  twice  and  the  third  one  three  times  finishing 
off  the  whole  verse  as  given  in  Isaiah  whereas  Ezek.  3.12  is  recited 
by  the  Ofanim  and  the  Hayyot.38  From  this  Talmudic  passage  it 
would  seem  that  the  Trishagion  in  heaven  was  recited  only  once 
daily  and  yet  in  the  synagogue  the  custom  developed  to  repeat 
the  Trishagion  three  times  daily.  Thus  in  Targum  Sheni  (to  ch. 
5.1)  we  read  in  Esther's  prayer:  ID"  p  .KO^y  p  ]ny  htrw  ]^i 
por  nWi  NDV  ^zo  0np  Brnp  emp  -pip.  This  threefold  recitation 
is  also  mentioned  several  times  in  the  mystical  writings,  cited  first 
by  the  Geonim  but  probably  dating  from  earlier  times  (the  so- 
called  Hekhalot  writings).39  Of  these  three  occasions  two  would 

3?a  In  the  so-called  Pirke  of  R.  Eliezer  (in  Pseudo-Seder  Eliahu  Zuta,  ed. 
Friedmann,  p.  47)  this  statement  is  attributed  to  R.  Eliezer  the  son  of  R.  Yose 
the  Galilean. 

38  Cf.  Hullin  92a  top  n^>  na«i  Kin  a']Di«  "|Tn..    See  'Amram,  ed.  Warsaw, 
I,  4b,  where  the  passage  is  attributed  to  R.  Ishmael  and  where  it  ends  D'jsiNm 
IDT  -p-Q  DmnN  piy  enipn  nvm,  and  10bv 

39  See  Hekhalot  Rabbati  (in  Eisenstein's  D'amo  1X1N,  I,  lllb  ff)  3.2;  3.3: 
;rnp  ns1?  onmn  l?«n»'B>  ny»a  »np  noi1?  art's  ]»nms»  ...or  "733  D'oy 

ch.  9.  2-3:  nnrw  nVsm  neny  'JN  na  '»V  iTini  nown  D«  njpiD  mr  D'DiP1? 

D'oye   '3  . .  .»np  '2s1?   onoiti  !?mp'p  ny»  ^aai  m»  ^33    rraiyi  nn;on 

»np  ':s^  onmn  QT\WD   (the   parallel  passage  in  'Amram  I,  4a,  rightly  omits 


CHANGES  IN  THE  DIVINE  SERVICE  263 

be  the  Kedushot  of  Shaharit  and  Minhah40  whereas  the  third  is 
dubious.  Actually  the  Babylonian  ritual  has  in  the  daily  Shaharit 
alone  three  Kedushot,  viz.  inn  rramp,  m'Djn  rramp  and  rramp 
toiDi,  which  with  the  Minhah  Kedushah  increase  the  occasions 
to  four.  On  Sabbaths,  including  the  tmoi  nzmp  recited  on 
P'SID,  the  number  grows  to  six.41  This  increase  is  traced  to  times 
of  persecution  and  will  be  discussed  forthwith  after  considering 
first  the  importance  of  the  Trishagion  in  the  Christian  liturgy. 
2.  In  the  Christian  liturgy  the  Trishagion  (or  Teisanctus) 
also  has  a  prominent  role.  It  is  interesting  that  in  the  Eastern 
liturgies42  the  proper  Trishagion  has  the  following  remarkable 
form:  Holy  God,  holy  strong,  holy  immortal,  have  mercy  upon  us 
(ay LOS  6  6e6s,  #7105  iaxvpbs,  0,7105  adavaros,  eXerjcrev  ri/jias). 
Drews  (in  Herzog-Hauck,  Realienencyklopddie  f.  prot.  Theol.  u. 
Kirche,3rd  ed.,XX,  125  ff.),  while  rightly  arguing  that  the  Trisha- 
gion was  taken  over  by  the  Church  from  the  Jewish  liturgy  going 
back  to  the  earliest  times  (ibid  127,  1.  19  ff.)43,  has  difficulty  in 
explaining  the  above  form  of  the  Trishagion  (ibid.,  p.  128).  A 
legend  connects  its  origin  with  an  earthquake  in  Constantinople 

the  word  ivanyi;  see  also  ^"TUP,  eel.  Buber,  p.  19);  ch.  10,  end;  11.3: 
inrn  m^y  jnna  DVI  ov  ^oa;  11.4:  nmon  n^sn  yjna  on  or  ^33;  18.3.  The 
theme  of  the  Kedushah  of  the  angels  being  dependent  on  the  Kedushah  of 
Israel  is  further  developed  ibid.,  p.  122b,  123a,  b.  Another  mystical  text 
(ibid.  HOa)  speaks  of  angels  reciting  the  Trishagion  from  morning  to  evening 
while  others  repeating  ina  from  evening  to  morning.  This  idea  is  found 
already  in  S.E.R.,  ed.  Friedmann,  pp.  34,  84,  163,  193.  Cf.  also  Midr.  Ps., 
c.  19,  ed.  Buber,  p.  166.  Already  in  the  book  of  Enoch  (39.12)  we  read 
of  angelic  "watchers"  ("those  that  never  sleep"  =  ]'i*y)  who  recite  the  Trisha- 
gion before  God. 

*°  See  preceding  note. 

41  See  Elbogen,  p.  67. 

42  Cf.  the  so-called  early  liturgy  of  James  (in   Writings  of  Ante-Nicene 
Fathers,  VII,  p.  538,  col.  2)  and  the  so-called  liturgy  of  Mark  (ibid.,  p.  553,  col. 
1).    See  also  p.  557.    Osterley  in  his  new  book  ( The  Jewish  Background  of  the 
Christian  Liturgy,  Oxford,  1925,  pp.  142-147)  has  entirely  failed  to  consider  the 
problem  discussed  here. 

«  Drews  (p.  127,  11.  50-51)  is  of  course  incorrect  in  assuming  that  the 
Trishagion  was  recited  already  in  the  time  of  Jesus  in  the  first  benediction 
before  the  Shema',  hence  the  so-called  ism  n»np  (see  infra,  p.  274).  The 
earliest  Kedushah  was  the  one  in  connection  with  the  third  benediction  of  the 
'Amidah  known  as  am  rump. 


264  JACOB  MANN 

between  the  years  434-446.  Drews  thinks  that  it  is  older  than 
the  5th  century  and  yet  cannot  be  granted  much  antiquity.  "It 
is  certainly  not  Jewish  in  origin  because  to  call  God  adavaros  is 
not  Jewish  but  Greek.  However  why  just  this  combination  of 
the  attributes  "strong"  and  "immortal"  was  chosen  and  why  this 
formula  was  afforded  a  place  in  the  mass,  is  impossible  to  explain." 
An  examination  of  the  Targumic  paraphrase  of  Is.  6.3  will, 
however,  reveal  the  fact  that  the  above  form  of  the  Trishagion  is 
a  re-formulation  of  the  Targumic  form  in  the  sense  of  the  Trinity. 
That  Is.  6.3  was  taken  by  the  Christian  divines  to  refer  to  the 
trinity  is  well-known  (so,  e.  g.,  Origen  and  Gregory  Nazianzen).4* 
The  trinitarian  interpretation  of  the  Trishagion  is  also  evident 
from  the  fact  that  all  Eastern  Christian  liturgies  have  the  end 
of  the  verse  of  Is.  6.3  (maa  p«n  *?3  vbo)  in  the  form  "heaven  and 
earth  are  full  of  Thy  glory"  (see  Drews,  ibid,  p.  126,  1.  15ff.,  who 
offers  no  explanation  for  the  leaving  out  of  "?D,  iraaa}.  It  seems  to 
me  that  this  was  taken  to  refer  to  Jesus  sitting  in  heaven  at  the 
right  hand  of  God.  It  was  at  a  time,  when  Christianity  was  not 
yet  triumphant  in  the  Roman  Empire  so  that  "the  whole  earth" 
could  not  yet  be  full  of  Jesus'  glory,  that  in  the  Christian  liturgy 
this  sentence  was  remodeled  in  a  general  way  to  denote  "heaven 
and  earth  are  full  of  thy  glory."  Be  that  as  it  may,  Targum 
paraphrases  Is.  6.3  in  the  following  threefold  division  :  'QBD 
.rrmiaa  iaiy  Njnx  "?y  trip  ,rpnra»  rva  nt&y 


mp»  vr  KJHN  "?:>  ioV»  mtax  '"'  ,«'0^y.  It  is  remarkable  that  in  the 
second  sanctus  reference  is  made  to  the  earth  "the  work  of  His 
power  (5&?a/us)"  and  in  the  third  we  have  an  allusion  to  his 
everlastingness.  That  the  attributes  "strong"  and  "immortal" 
(i.  e.  everlasting)  in  the  second  and  third  Christian  sanctus  re- 
spectively are  parallels  to  God's  "power"  and  "everlastingness" 
in  the  Targum  is  strikingly  evident.  Of  course  in  the  Targum 
these  attributes  are  conceived  in  a  sense  of  the  absolute  unity  of 
God  whereas  in  the  Christian  formula  of  the  Trishagion  they 
assume  aspects  of  the  Trinity.  Without  going  into  a  discussion 
of  the  complicated  development  of  the  idea  of  the  Trinity,  it  suf- 
fices to  state  that  Jesus  was  regarded  as  the  incarnation  on  earth 

44  See  Diestel,  Gesch.  d.  Allen  Testaments  in  d.  Christl.  Kirche,  p.  122. 


CHANGES  IN  THE  DIVINE  SERVICE  265 

of  God's  Logos  and  that  the  Holy  Spirit  formed  a  third  element 
through  the  fellowship  of  which  the  believer  became  united  with 
Jesus  (see  Hasting's  Encyclopedia  of  Religion  and  Ethics,  s.  v. 
Trinity,  XII,  458,  col.  2,  top.).35  Now  the  Logos  idea,  was  taken 
over  from  Philo  who  termed  the  Logos  "the  power  (dvvot.iJ.Ls) 
of  God  or  the  acting  divine  wisdom."46  In  Christian  thinking 
Jesus  became  "the  power  and  the  wisdom  of  God"  (so  Paul  in  1 
Cor.  1.24:  xP^^ov  deov  ^vvafj-LV  Kaideov  (7O(f>Lav,  see  also  verse 
18).  Hence  in  the  second  sanctus  "holy  strong"  alludes  to  Jesus 
the  embodiment  of  God's  power  (dynamis)  while  in  the  third 
"holy  immortal"  refers  to  the  Holy  Spirit  by  which  the  believers 
share  in  immortality. 

3.  The  above  Targumic  paraphrase  has  an  evident  polemical 
point.  It  has  a  distinct  allusion  of  to  the  idea  of  God's  "power" 
(nTDJ,  fivvajjiis)  which  was  connected  with  the  Philonic  Logos.47 

45  See  further  Harnack,  Dogmengeschichte,  4th  ed.,  p.  213  ff. 

46  About  Philo's  idea  of  the  Logos  see  Zeller,  Philosophie  der  Griechen,  4th 
ed.  (1903),  III,  2,  pp.  418  ff.    See  also  p.  417  about  Philo's  idea  of  two  chief 
forces  immanent  in  the  Supreme  Being  the  one  being  His  mercy  and  the  other 
His  power;  the  former  being  the  creative,  beneficient,  gracious  and  merciful 
force,  the  second  being  the  royal,  legislative  and  punishing  force.     God's 
mercy  is  called  6e6s  while  His  power  Kvpios.     This  is  akin  to  the  Rabbinic 
idea  of  D'om  mo  and  |'in  mo  the  former  being  designated  by  the  Tetragram- 
maton  and  the  second  by  Elohim  (see,  e.g.,  Gen.  R.,  c.  33:  mo  'n  1D«3»  mpo  ^>33 

(]'in  mo  Nin  DTI^N  TD«:»  aipo  ^>33  . . .  o'om 

About  the  various  conceptions  of  the  "great  dynamis"  of  God,  the  Logos, 
see  further  M.  Friedlander,  Synagoge  u.  Kirche,  pp.  9,  77,  84,  88,  90,  93,  129-30, 
226  ff. 

47  Of  course  God  is  frequently  spoken  of  in  the  Bible  as  "mighty"  (im) 
and  so  also  in  the  Talmudic  literature;  cf.  e.g.  the  characteristic  passage  in 
Yoma  69b,  as  to  what  constitutes  God's  power  (mu})  in  connection  with  the 
phrase  at  the  beginning  of  the  'Amidah  mum  inn  ^n:n  ^«n    (cf.    Deut. 
10.17).    But  the  allusion  in  Targum  to  the  world  as  "the  work  of  His  power" 
(nvnua  tniy)  is  evidently  a  reference  to  the  "great  dynamis,"  the  Logos, 
which  Philo  regarded  as  the  instrument  by  which  God  created  the  whole  world. 
(See  the  references  cited  by  Zeller,  ibid.,  p.  420,  note  1). 

The  influence  of  Philo's  idea  of  the  dynamis  can  also  be  detected  in  the 
attribute  mi33  recurring  many  times  in  the  Rabbinic  literature  as  a  synonym 
for  God  (see  e.  g.,  Makk.  24a,  top:  mayor  mian  'DO  rrrv  K^I  'D3«;  Sabb.  88b: 
mi3jn  'BD  NX'IP  -IUHI  -inn  "73  parallel  to  n'npn  'Do  N2£'»  -nam  inn  ^3  As  is 
well-known  the  dynamis  plays  a  role  in  the  Kabbalah  as  one  of  the  ten  ema- 
nations (Sefirot).  However,  the  matter  cannot  be  discussed  here  in  detail. 


266  JACOB  MANN 

When  it  originated  is  difficult  to  say.  Of  course  the  Targum  on 
the  Prophets  is  traditionally  attributed  to  Hillel's  prominent 
disciple,  Jonathan  b.  'Uzziel  (first  half  of  1st  century,  C.  E.,  Meg. 
3a).  It  is  assumed  that  this  Targum  was  adopted  in  Babylon  in 
the  third  century  as  the  official  translation  of  the  synagogue  and 
that  it  was  revised  there  to  meet  the  linguistic  pecularities  of  the 
Babylonian  Aramaic.  The  Amora  R.  Joseph  of  Pumbedita  seems 
especially  to  have  devoted  attention  to  this  Targum,  doing  per- 
haps the  revision  work,  and  hence  it  is  sometimes  cited  in  his 
name  (see  Bacher,  /.  £.,  XII,  61a,  b).  Whatever  may  be  the 
veracity  of  the  tradition  assigning  the  Targum  on  Prophets  to 
Jonathan,  the  above  paraphrase  could  hardly  emanate  from  him 
as  it  is  unlikely  that  he  already  would  allude  to  the  Philonic 
Logos,  not  to  speak  of  going  further  to  combat  the  Christian  idea 
of  Trinity  which  was  yet  in  its  embryo.  But  it  is  evident  that  this 
paraphrase  was  used  in  the  synagogue  in  connection  with  the 
Trishagion  to  combat  the  idea  of  the  Trinity.  It  is  significant 
that  in  the  so-called  N~nDT  nKTTp,  whose  origin  is  connected  with  a 
persecution  prohibiting  the  recital  of  the  Kedushah  (to  be  dis- 
cussed forthwith),  Is.  6.3  is  given  in  Hebrew  together  with  this 
Targumic  paraphrase  (and  likewise  the  accompanying  verse  of 
Ezek.  3.12).  Already  R.  Na^ronai  Gaon  (6th  decade  of  9th 
century)  was  asked  for  a  reason  for  this  Aramaic  translation  of  the 
Kedushah  (^"J,  No.  90)  who,  however,  failed  to  give  a  satisfactory 
answer  (as  will  be  shown  further  on).  The  reason  after  our  above 
discussion  is  self-evident.  It  was  to  emphasize  the  Jewish  inter- 
pretation of  the  Trishagion  as  against  the  Trinity.  Later  on  the 
Targumic  paraphrase  was  recited  softly  (WlVa)  as  it  was  found  in 
Christian  countries  advisable  not  to  proclaim  in  a  loud  voice 
(D~I  "?lp2)  such  a  manifest  public  declaration  of  faith.48 

That  the  spokesmen  of  the  church,  powerful  in  Byzantium 


<8  See  Vitry,  pp.  73-4:  (nr  ^»N  nr  topi  ,'nna  nxr  'JNI  ,]v^  tui>  i^n  nnnpn  ' 


'131  |'i  ]o  |'i  I'VapDi  ,iu'xn  ay  vnhi  INBTTI  DI  ^ips  Tirx  rv^z>  TDIN.  Graetz, 
M.  G.  W.  J.,  1887,  553,  rightly  surmised  the  polemical  point  contained 
in  the  Aramaic  paraphrase  without,  however,  realizing  its  full  significance. 
Yet  he  expressly  threw  out  his  suggestion  for  further  examination  by  others  (see 
p.  552,  bottom). 


CHANGES  IN  THE  SIVINE  SERVICE  267 

which  ruled  over  Palestine,  should  have  objected  to  this  Jewish 
emphasis  of  the  Trishagion  is  only  natural.  Indeed  several 
reports  speak  of  the  prohibition  of  the  Kedushah  a  substitute  for 
which  was  found  by  the  Rabbis  in  the  NTIDI  rramp  beginning 
with  iVX1?  101  in  order  to  circumvent  the  decree  of  the  govern- 
ment. The  term  N~nD~T  n&'np  occurs  only  once  in  the  Babylonian 
Talmud  (Sotah  49a)  without  any  indication  of  its  contents.  One 
could  argue  that  there  the  term  means  the  Kaddish  which,  as  is 
evident  from  the  phraseology  of  the  Gaonim,  also  was  connected 
with  the  act  of  sanctifying  God.49  It  would  fit  in  there  in  the 
context,  viz.  that  after  the  study  of  a  Halakhic  theme  (toiD)50 
in  the  synagogue  the  full  Kaddish  was  recited  beginning  with 
tnpm  ^Tin'  whereas  after  an  Aggadic  theme  (NfiTiN),  viz.  a 
sermon  delivered  by  the  preacher,  who  usually  concluded  his 
theme  with  a  reference  to  the  Redemption  (n^iw  or  nom) 
expressing  his  prayerful  wish  that  it  speedily  arrive,  the  last  word 
of  the  speaker  "Amen"  would  be  taken  up  by  the  listeners  with 
the  exclamation  '01  N3T  mo»  «rr  p«.SI 

4.  However,  there  is  evidently  a  genuine  tradition  behind 
the  identification  of  NTTDT  rrcmp  with  the  section  known  in  the 
ritual  as  }V^7  N31,  though  the  real  meaning  of  the  term  seems  to 
me  to  have  been  hitherto  misunderstood.  Let  us  at  first  cite 
what  the  authorities  of  the  Gaonic  period  reported  as  to  its 


49  See  R.  Natronai's  responsum  (in  ^')  No.  90):  J'^BIJI  ]'^Drn  vnzo  n'n 
.mina   ]'P01JM   (read  ]'Bnpo>    jznpo  J'nxi  ...<»'ip   D'IOINI=>    1'inpoi  )rv:B   *?y 
Likewise  in  'Amram,  ed.  Warsaw,  18a:  'tib'yh.  ty  znpDl;  19a;  if'v  enpoi;  25b: 
'o-by  n»y.  ly  enpci;  29b;  n'"?»n  »npo  nsinn  DVD  int^i;  see  also  30a,  31a. 

50  NIID  here  would  then  mean  niu^n  nno.    Thus  a  scholar  who  knew  how 
to  present  the  Halakhot  in  order  was  called  ]~\~\o  (]~\T\O,  see  Bacher,  Exege- 
tische  Terminologie,  II,  136).     As  is  well  known,  in  Babylon,  before  it  had  its 
two  organised  schools  in  the  3rd  century,  the  leader  of  the  scholars  in  Nehardea 
was  called  tmo  B>n  (see  Sherira's  Letter,  ed.  Lewin,  78,  80). 

51  The  full  faddish  after  study  of  Halakhot  seems  to  be  indicated  in 
S.  E.  R.,  ed.  Friedmann,  p.  31:  yorh  yivi  D'airoi  D'«'3)i  mm  :HN  toip 


HJIPP  'D1?  -|nx.  On  the  other  hand  cf.  Kohel.  R.,  9.15:  nni  arv  jpmp 
^»njn  IOP  vr  |DK  vnn«  piyi  (cf.  Midr.  Prov.  c.  10,  ed.  Buber,  66)  and 
still  more  explicitly  in  Midr.  Prov.,  c.  14  (ed.  Buber,  75):]'BDx:  ^top'z*  nyra 

nvou  T33 


268  JACOB  MANN 

meaning  and  its  origin.  On  the  one  hand  its  origin  is  ascribed  to 
a  persecution  which  involved  the  prohibition  of  the  Kedushah. 
Thus  in  a  responsum  evidently  emanating  from  Semahi  b.  Paltoi, 
Gaon  of  Pumbedita  (872-890  C.  E.),  where  it  is  not  indicated 
which  Kedushah  was  proscribed.52  The  same  account  is  found  in 
a  more  expanded  form  in  Or  Zaru'a  (II,  lie)  where  it  is  cited  as  a 
quotation  from  myixpnn  "ISD.SJ  There  is  further  an  account, 
evidently  not  Gaonic,  which  connected  NTFDI  rrcmp  with  the  pro- 
hibition of  the  reading  of  the  Torah  with  its  Aramaic  translation54 
—  a  seemingly  absurd  combination  which,  however,  will  be  seen 
further  on  to  have  its  own  explanation. 

On  the  other  hand  R.  Natronai  of  Sura  tries  to  connect  this 
Kedushah  with  the  former  custom  of  extensive  study  by  scholars 
after  the  service  which  study  had  to  be  given  up  owing  to  econ- 
omic reasons  in  order  that  the  worshippers  be  not  detained  too 

52  D-nsn  'BipV,  9a,  where  the  passage  or\hxvv\  seems  to  be  a  continuation  of 
the  previous  responsum  by  Isaac  $emah  (b.  Pal^oi),  Gaon  of  Pumbedita  (971- 
90).    It  reads:  «"?»  nyenn  mzj^D  rnn  nn«  oys  ?«ITDI  ntzmp  onoiN  nab  :nn"?«»»i 
via1?  ]'DJ3J  vn  3'riNi  ,]'3^im  n^snn  ]'0"DD0  ty  IVD^D  'mW  ]»a»v  vm  ,smp  "?«n»'  TIDN' 
pVnon  xbv  H3  yxoN3  nernp  j'Wiai  'arm  'pios  <  r.  JHDIXD  'ONI  nViwa  I'nms  vn  nvD» 
on'BD.    The  following  passage,  beginning  with  '31^  HNI^,  is  Rashi's  explanation, 
who  tried  to  unify  the  various  accounts,  as  will  be  seen  forthwith.  This  responsum 
does  not  state  which  Kedushah  was  prohibited.    Only  Rashi  explains  that  it 
refers  to  the  Kedushah  of  'Amidah  evidently  taking  the  phrase  n'rsnn  |'D"DD» 
to  mean  the  'Amidah  whereas  it  really  means  the  whole  service.    Rashi's 
explanation  is  also  repeated  in  Vitry,  108;  Siddur  Rashi,  217-18;  Pardes,  ed. 
Ehrenreich,  305-6.  See  also  b'niv,  p.  38.  Also  R.  Isaac  Ab-Bet-  Din  of  Narbonne 
(^iD»«n,  I,  33)  took  over  Rashi's  explanation  but  for  the.Targumic  paraphrase 
gives  an  explanation  that  it  was  done  for  ignorami.     He  then  gives  another 
explanation  for  tmoi  n»np  which  shows  how  uncertain  he  was  in  understand- 
ing the  whole  matter. 

53  no'D1?  «*7i  ny«nn  nia^o  (r.  mn>  nn  »DJ  n»np  -non  myixpon  nsoa  nnD  myi 

IPJ  i»y  no    .nemp 


n»npi  'piDB  now  ,]no«i  JH  ID  ]H  j'Vapoi  nirnp1?  n1?  ]'onnoi  I'-inm  ,pwpp 

.'i3i  mnni  nay  vinrw 

"  In  Kobak's  Jeschurun,  Hebrew  part,  VI,  126-7,  Halberstam  edited  from 
a  MS.  a  passage  evidently  emanating  from  R.  Eli'ezer  Rokeah,  who  first  cited  a 
Gaonic  responsum  (D'ji«)n  mawro  'HNXO)  about  this  Kedushah  (similar  to  R. 
Na^ronai's  in  b'l,  No.  90)  and  then  adds:  N^>P  nyznn  ms^o  mn»  uyo»  -nyi 
«npi  noi1?!  iioron  "73  mx  nra  'n  -jiy  noi^  nna»  D'DDn  lyapi  lonn'i  mina 

,'nn  '3«»ni  ,nr 


CHANGES  IN  THE  DIVINE  SERVICE  269 

long  in  synagogue  when  due  to  attend  to  their  making  a  living.55 
The  whole  account  does  not  explain  in  the  least  the  insertion  of 
the  Kedushah  after  the  completion  of  the  ordinary  Tefillah  whether 
we  consider  the  earlier  custom  or  the  later  one  and  yet  this  has 
been  taken  by  modern  scholars  as  a  true  explanation  of  rramp 
KTiDT..56  Rashi  tried  to  combine  both  accounts  and  only  added 
to  the  confusion  of  the  problem.  The  two  verses  Is.  6.3  and  Ezek. 
3.12,  to  which  R.  Natronai  clearly  refers  as  having  been  retained 
even  after  the  reading  from  the  prophets  had  been  given  up, 
became  to  Rashi  ]vxb  «ai  and  TVU  nw  »»i  whereas  the  Ke- 
dushah verses  themselves  were  really  due  to  a  persecution.57  The 
same  unwarranted  combination  of  the  different  accounts  we 
have  noticed  above  (p.  359)  in  connection  with  the  insertion  of 
the  Shema'  in  the  Kedushah  of  the  'Amidah.  Now  if  the  Ked- 
ushah has  also  been  prescribed  by  Byzantium,  what  becomes  then 
of  the  report  of  the  insertion  of  Shema'  within  it  by  reason  of  gov- 

55  ^-]  No.  90:  DP  v  oyD  no  ,nn  'jtwrn  ,nato  nr  *?n  nr  tnpi  anbxvv  inontsj  ai1? 
as  if  it  could  be  called  nennp  -no>  ?nemp  -noa  o'aan  anunyap  oyo  nailDnn^innp1? 
on':D17y|'17DUi]'l7l7Bnavn!P3n>nopp'POipa:o':iis>N-i  rua  -p  (without  these  verses 
1'annai  ,-irv  in  ton  p  ,0'piDD  ''  ia  riipi  waj  j'trao  '131  n'a»  Nrv  JON  piyp  -mx1?  . 
,R'a:  *?v  nens  nm«  iann»  D»D  j'Dnnai  IBKI  nr  ^«  nr  «ipi  nnois  3 
(r.  I'npa)  ]npa  a'n«i  ,n'apn  ^w  inaua  D"D^»  'ia  ini«  ponnai  nn  ': 

nvjy  nnaip  ]'DI  .  .  .poiy  no^na  nxnn  ,poi;  n:»D3  nxnn  ,mina 
npyi  .  .  .nj»Bi  topa  laryi  ia^a  na^nn  hy  iaao:  on'T  npyoa  ononn^  D'TD^n 
npy  «"?  D'pios  'jr  JHIN  N'zua  nnp^»  npyp  fl'yNi  ,nVsn  inn  ov  "?aa  wuia  nnp1? 
p'pp  «'n  nr^ra  nernpp  anp'y  K^  na  '»ai  .onaiyi  D'yup  1'nyi  amw 


The  same  responsum  is  ascribed  in  n'r,  No.  55,  to  Hai.  See  further  Vitry,  p.  26. 

s6  See  Elbogen,  79,  and  Ginzberg,  Geonica,  II,  299. 

s'  Cf.  the  whole  passage  in  onon  'Dip1?,  9a:  onow  u*w  nrnpn  nior  «an^  n«n: 
firm  mi3t«3  npnp  may1?  K"?P  ana  pran  nw  nup'n  na»n  nyra  npaa  ]i'x^  «ai  -]ina 
nprrp  hv  iV^n  mwipa  anai«  vn  D'aninn  ora  ij1?,!  naar  ny&  ini«l?i  .nisna  n'1  ima 
a»n  in'^  (so  Rashi  realized  the  point  against  the  Trinity).  Then  he  begins 
to  recapitulate  the  other  argument:  rraa  nn«  nyr  ninr1?  jnja  on^  n'n  n^nnai 
ITS'?  «3i  D'piDD  ':»  i^>«  K'aa  ]mp  vn  a'Dy«i  ,npy  «'aia  "?a«  '121  on^Dn  nn«  nonn 
...aaipaa  D'yup  on  |"nyi  ...minn  nwnp  (read  ]'ya>  ]'«a  ona  r'r  Tina  nt«r  '«o  ,^KU 
vn  «"?»  (read  ina«»>  na«r  oycjn  inr  IBKI  nr  h»  nr  «npi  DV  ^»aa  nai^  iD'oin  ny 
'IDT  c»  vn  D'aniKn»  'jaa  nn«  n3'on3  n^onn  "|ina  nrnp  nai^  i^is1.  See  further 
the  parallel  passages  given  above,  note  52,  end. 


270  JACOB  MANN 

ernment  prohibition?  No  wonder  then  that  owing  to  this  vicious 
circle  all  the  accounts  relating  to  10-M  nyv  have  been  suspected 
by  modern  scholars. 

5.  In  my  opinion  N~r?D~  nBTip  originally  meant  in  Palestine 
the  Trishagion  recited  after  the  Shema'  at  the  taking  out  of  the 
Scroll  on  Sabbath  mornings  for  the  purpose  of  reading  the  portion 
("no,  N~nD)  of  the  respective  week.  That  the  weekly  portion 
of  the  Torah  in  the  Triennial  Cycle  prevalent  in  Palestine  was 
known  as  KT1D  is  well  established  (see,  e.g.,  the  references  given 
by  Bacher,  Exeget.  Terminologie,  II,  134).  What  more  appro- 
priate psychological  occasion  could  there  be  for  emphasizing  the 
doctrine  of  the  unity  of  God  than  at  the  taking  out  the  Torah — 
that  very  Torah  which  Christianity  claimed  to  have  been  super- 
seded by  the  new  dispensation — to  recite  the  first  verse  of  the 
Shema'  and  in  connection  therewith  to  reiterate  the  Trishagion 
with  its  Targumic  paraphrase  as  not  indicating  the  Trinity  but 
rather  being  in  accord  with  the  strict  Jewish  conception  of  mono- 
theism? Thus  quite  early  in  the  Christian  period  the  spiritual 
leaders  of  Palestinian  Jewry  must  have  ordained  to  bring  em- 
phatically the  basic  principle  of  Judaism  to  the  notice  of  the  wor- 
shippers assembled  for  the  divine  service  on  Sabbath  morning. 
Then  came  the  reading  of  the  Torah  with  its  Aramaic  translation, 
likewise  the  prophetic  lesson  with  its  Aramaic  Aggadic  para- 
phrase and  finally  on  the  basis  of  the  Scriptural  readings  the 
preaching  and  teaching  of  the  Rabbis  ending  usually  in  depicting 
the  Messianic  age  or  alluding  to  the  coming  of  the  redeemer  to 
Zion  (^N13  ]V^7  N3i)  which  the  worshippers  would  fervently  take 
up  with  "pus  Km  rPDP  N;T  JDN  eulogising  God  as  above  all  human 
praises  and  pictures  of  consolation  of  Israel  (NrD~Q  hsa  vb'tff 
Knorai  NnratPin  ,Km'zn).«a 

Now  that  some  such  introduction  and  conclusion  of  the 
Scriptural  readings  were  in  vogue  in  the  Palestinian  ritual  can 
still  be  detected  from  the  scattered  data.  Above  (p.  259  ff.)  the 

57&  These  four  words  indicate  the  contents  of  the  service  preceding  this 
eulogy  of  God,  viz.  the  various  benedictions,  the  lectionaries  from  Scripture 
and  the  other  praises,  which  were  recited  from  the  beginning  of  the  morning 
service  till  the  sermon  of  the  preacher  which  contained  'consolations'  (mom) 
probably  in  connection  with  the  Haftarah  of  the  week. 


CHANGES  IN  THE  DIVINE  SERVICE  271 

insertion  of  Shema'  at  n"D  n^nn,  preserved  in  Soferim,  14.8-9, 
has  been  discussed.  It  was  based  on  a  characteristic  interpreta- 
tion of  the  passage  in  the  Mishnah  yo?  *??  oils  ton  N'an  Tason. 
Now  Soferim  continues  to  describe  this  ceremony  of  taking 
out  the  Scroll  by  stating  that  after  the  Shema'  the  Maf^ir  con- 
tinues with  a  formula  which  resembles  the  Trishagion  (14.10: 
,ynp  wans  mm  irn^»  IHN  ,Bmp  ITJIIK  ^vu  wrk*  ins  101x1  mm 
IDS?  sun  t/np  Wins  Vila  irn^s  in**)*8.  The  author  explains  this 
threefold  sanctification  to  correspond  to  the  three  patriarchs 
(HUH  ne^P  ma)  but  more  correct  is  the  alternative  reason  as 
corresponding  to  the  threefold  sanctus  (m<zmp  v1?*?  1U3  s"'i).s» 
At  the  recital  of  the  Shema'  and  the  subsequent  threefold  yet 
monotheistic  sanctification  of  God  the  Scroll  was  lifted  up  to 
make  the  ceremony  still  more  impressive  (14.11  end: 


vis  'l7     1331  nzv  I'Tin"  i7K3i    si»'  yoza  minn  nx>. 

The  ritual  in  Soferim  evidently  represents  already  a  modi- 
fication by  actually  omitting  the  Trishagion  with  its  Targu- 
mic  paraphrase.  This  was  the  modified  form  already  during  the 
Muslim  period  after  the  vicissitudes  of  the  custom  as  a  result  of 
the  government  proscription  in  the  Byzantine  period.  For,  such  a 
custom  as  suggested  above  must  have  strongly  offended  the 
authorities  when  Byzantium  became  the  champion  of  the  Church. 
It  is  difficult  to  ascertain  when  the  government  stepped  in  to 
regulate  the  Jewish  divine  service  according  to  its  notions.  The 
first  definite  information  dates  from  553  when  Justinian  issued  his 
famous  Novella  concerning  the  Deuterosis  (though  other  inter- 
ferences may  be  earlier).  As  a  supplement  of  this  edict  then  the 
Shema'  and  Kedushah  (iNiioi  nenip)  at  the  taking  out  of  the 

58  The  usual  editions  of  Mas.  Soferim  have  shortened  this  threefold  sancti- 
fication but  one  MS.  and  the  quotation  in  Or  Zaru'a  have  the  full  text  (see 
Miiller's  note  39  on  p.  195)  which  is  evident  also  from  14.11;  r\vbv  pun"  I^K. 
Interesting  is  the  reference  to  God  as  "merciful"  in  view  of  the  Christian 
version  of  the  Trishagion  ending  with  "have  mercy  upon  us"  (above  p.  263)! 

59  To  explain  that  the  author  refers  to  the  three  Kedushot  recited  on 
Sabbath  morning  («]oio  n0npi  nnrw  nv.tp  ,-ixvi  rwnp)  would  pre-suppose  him 
following  the  Babylonian  custom  for  which  there  is  no  evidence.     In  Palestine 
Kedushah  was  only  recited  in  the  Shaharit  'Amidah  while  irvn  nzmp  is  also 
missing  in  the  Genizah  liturgical  fragments  of  the  Palestinian   ritual   (see 
infra,  p.  274). 


272  JACOB  MANN 

Scroll  had  to  be  omitted.  With  the  preachings  of  the  Rabbis  also 
proscribed,  the  subsequent  Kaddish  with  tan  rrov  Nrp  ]DX  went 
too.  Hence  the  report  in  the  name  of  R.  Benjamin  b.  Abraham 
'Anav  (the  same  who  reported  about  the  insertion  of  Shema'  in 
Di«  Nrp  D^iy1?,  above  p.  247)  of  a  prohibition  of  the  Kaddish  in  the 
Hebrew  language.60  The  reason  given  is  not  very  convincing  but 
the  tradition  of  a  proscription  of  "pino  hran  lo»  NIT  pN  seems  to 
have  some  plausible  basis  because  it  followed  the  preachings 
(Deuterosis)  of  the  Rabbis.61  Our  explanation  of  NTTDI  namp  as 
the  Trishagion  recited  at  n"D  riNXin  explains  also  its  reported  con- 
nection with  the  prohibition  of  the  reading  and  the  translating 
of  the  Torah  (above  p.  268). 

The  ordinary  Kedushah  in  the  'Amidah  of  Sabbath  Shaharit 
was  probably  not  proscribed  as  it  contained  merely  Is.  6.3  and 
Ezek.  3.12  to  which  Christianity  could  not  object  as  it  too  was 
having  the  Trishagion  in  its  liturgy.  It  was  therefore  used  by  the 
Rabbis  as  a  place  wherein  to  insert  the  beginning  and  the  end  of 
the  Shema'  which  had  been  prohibited.  It  was  done  secretly  and 
slurred  over  in  the  intonation  of  the  Hazzan  (as  described  above, 
pp.  252).  But  the  tmcn  mzmp  found  now  its  place  in  ]V^?  tai 
which  was  probably  instituted  at  Sabbath  Minhah  before  n"np.6ia 

60  b'niv,  ed.  Buber,  p.  9:  (cf.  N'3n,  ed.  Hurwitz,  p.  6d)I:  i"i:  TIN  ]'D'3a  'am 
^»N-i0'»  ny»  ^aae>  N*7N  iiy  N^I  :rbyiJ?  iriotw  103  nay  jiz^a  nn'n  im'DN  nVnnp  tana 
rtD33i  ,<N"y  ,'3  ,n%an3)  "\-\'ao  "?n:n  ia»  «n'  JDN.  i'3iyi  nwnio  'naVi  nvo»  'na1?  ]»DU3 

13'H3H  IS1?  "]TQD  VlllH  IDE*.  nDN'  N1?^  Tin  TDZ>  '0'31  .HtH  ]TO"?3  NSD3  mi« 

1x1  «"?  ,no»n  (read  ^tja^)  n'raaB'  s'yxi  .ia  ]'TDD  D'a'iNn  rn  vbv  'DIN  ]i»"?a 
.nai^»  'aaiB  m»j;^  nai  mn^Bini  D'DJH  inane"  «"?&  na  nay  iir^a  w1?  nann  -ivnn^ 
The  French  authorities  did  not  know  of  such  an  explanation.  Hence  Tosafot 
(Ber.  3a  bottom)  explains  n'y  iiaya  ninn  ]iw^a  ]pn:  »npn  whereas  another, 
rather  mystical,  reason  is  given  on  account  of  the  "serving  angels"  (Pardes,  ed. 
Ehrenreich,  p.  326:  w»rv  vbv  na  ?»'ipn  'DTN  ]i»Va  onoi«  no1?  :DI«  "?x»'  OKI 
]r«  »a  'n-m  ]iw^a  onm«  UN  -ja1?  .o^iyn  nN  lain'  NDE>  non  Nin  n'apn  "?»  io»»  v'n^o 
'131  na'ra  p'n1?  N"?N  p'ao,  see  also  onsn  'Dip5?,  7d,  8a).  Cf.  further  Abudra- 
ham,  ed.  Prague  1794,  21b  bottom,  22b. 

61  See  also  Pool,  The  Old  Jewish-Aramaic  Prayer,  the  Kaddish,  1909,  p.  20. 
fiia  With  regard  to  ]Vsh  N31  on  Sabbath  Minhah  there  was  a  difference  of 

custom  in  Babylon ;  in  Sura  and  all  over  Babylon  it  was  recited  after  the  read- 
ing of  the  Torah  whereas  only  in  the  school  of  Pumbedita  this  was  done  before 
n'np  (see  Genizah  responsum  cited  by  Mann,  317,  note  108:  '30  na»a  nmoa 
Nai  n»N  p  nriNi  miru  ]mp  nVia  ^3aai  (i.  e.  Sura)  ibv  na'0'a  :v  ]'3H3D 


CHANGES  IN  THE  DIVINE  SERVICE  273 

This  service  was  not  watched  by  the  government  as  it  contained 
nothing  objectionable.  The  above  whole  ceremony  in  connection 
with  the  taking  out  of  the  Scroll  was  only  at  Shaharit  as  evident 
from  the  fact  that  it  was  assigned  to  the  Maftir.  There  was  no 
Haftarah  in  Palestine  at  Sabbath  Minhah  (unlike  Babylon,  see 
infra,  p.  282  ff.).  Hence  the  authorities  could  be  outwitted  by 
having  at  Minhah  ]VX*?  tai  with  Kedushah  and  its  Targumic 
paraphrase.  This  explains  the  reports  that  people  would  assemble 
again  in  the  synagogue  (see  notes  52  and  53),  viz.  for  Minhah 
service  after  having  had  their  Sabbath  meals  soon  after  midday.62 
Thus  N~non  rramp  was  originally  a  Palestinian  custom  for 
Minhah  on  Sabbaths.  In  Babylon  there  was  no  need  for  the 
whole  ceremony  at  ri"o  nNinn  because  her  Jewry  had  not  the  same 
problem  of  emphasizing  the  unity  of  God  in  the  Trishagion.  The 
insertion  of  Shema'  at  the  taking  out  of  the  Scroll  was  probably 
never  adopted  there  because  the  Mishnah  D"ns  Kin  N'3H  Tason 
yotp  *?y  was  interpreted  differently  (see  above  p.  260).  Moreover 
since  Yezdejerd's  prohibition  of  the  Shema'  (above  p.  256)  it  was 
not  found  advisable  to  add  it  at  the  taking  out  of  the  Scroll  as  it 
might  endanger  the  whole  reading  of  the  Torah.  Hence  it  is 
not  mentioned  in  the  Babylonian  ritual  in  this  connection  though 
IDP  Kim  amp  irarw  *?nj  wn1™  inx  is  still  preserved  in  'Amram 
(ed.  Warsaw,  p.  I,  24a)  as  a  relic  of  the  Palestinian  custom  (or  it 
may  be  it  was  taken  over  later  on  in  the  Muslim  period).  But 
npnp  in  ]vx"?  N3i,  as  it  had  been  evolved  in  Palestine,  found 


n»iy  ny  'OIK-  j'«npoi  (viz.  ]rx  ton  tovro  NID  imp  Nma  DID  ru'&'ai 
j'snpoi  mira  ompi  (viz.  end  of  Kaddish).  It  seems  that  Pumbedita 
followed  here  the  Palestinian  custom  as  was  the  case  also  with  another  liturgi- 
cal item,  viz.  D^iy  nann  and  not  nan  nant<  as  the  beginning  of  the  second 
benediction  before  Shema'  (see  Mann,  291). 

62  The  custom  of  holding  the  Sabbath  morning  service  till  noon  is  reported 
by  Josephus  (Vita,  54,  279),  in  describing  the  political  meeting  held  in  a 
synagogue  (proseucha)  at  Tiberias  on  a  Sabbath  (evidently  in  connection  with 
the  service)  during  his  governorship  in  Galilee  (67  C.  E.)  which  grew  excited 
and  "had  certainly  gone  into  tumult,  unless  the  sixth  hour  (i.e.  noon-time) 
which  has  now  come,  had  dissolved  the  assembly,  at  which  hour  our  laws  require 
us  to  go  to  dinner  on  Sabbath-days."  Cf.  further  R.  Joshua's  statement  with 
regard  to  Yom  Tob  (Besah  15b):  D31?  rxm  'n^  rxn  inp^n.  For  this  arrange- 
ment evidently  the  description  of  the  service  on  1.  Tishri  in  Neh.  8.  3, 
10-12,  served  as  a  model. 


274  JACOB  MANN 

entrance  in  Babylon  and  it  was  even  introduced  for  weekdays 
after  Shaharit.  There  set  in  a  desire  of  having  three  times 
Kedushah  in  Shaharit  (viz.  inn  ntpnp,  nTDjn  rwnp  and  rmip 
NTTDT).63  Altogether  the  Trishagion  for  mystical  purposes  was 
more  solemn  in  the  Babylonian  ritual  than  in  the  Palestinian. 
Thus  Abraham  Maimuni  reports  that  in  the  Babylonian  syna- 
gogue in  Fustat  the  Kedushah  of  the  'Amidah  was  recited  standing 
whereas  in  the  Palestinian  synagogue  sitting  (see  J.Q.R.,  V,  421-2). 
This  difference  in  custom  evidently  went  back  to  earlier  times  as 
prevalent  in  the  respective  countries  Babylon  and  Palestine.64 
Moreover  in  Palestine  the  Kedushah  was  at  all  omitted  during 
weekdays  (see  above,  p.  255,  note  37)  though  this  may  have  been 
a  result  of  the  proscription  of  the  daily  'Amidah.  Also  Kedushah  of 
Yoser  is  missing  in  the  Palestinian  ritual  and  seems  more  likely 
to  be  a  Babylonian  innovation  (see  Mann,  pp.  289-90). 

6.  This  seems  to  me  to  be  the  only  plausible  explanation  of 
this  whole  complicated  problem  of  NTFDI  n^np.  It  reconciles  the 
various  accounts  and  renders  them  more  or  less  intelligible. 
There  remains  only  to  discuss  briefly  the  passage  in  Sotah  49a 
wherein  this  Kedushah  is  mentioned  as  a  unicum.  The  Mishnah 
(48a)  contains  a  statement  by  Simon  b.  Gamliel,  in  the  name  of 
Joshu'a  b.  Hananya,  that  since  the  destruction  of  the  Temple  no 
day  passes  without  some  evil  event  ("a  TNP  DV  ]'N  p"ora  mntP  DVD 
rpVp)  evidently  referring  to  conditions  in  Palestine.  Thereupon 
Raba,  head  of  the  school  of  Mehtiza  in  Babylon  (337-352  C.  E.), 
remarks  that  the  curse  of  each  succeeding  day  is  greater  than  that 
of  the  previous  one  (49a :  nun  h&D  iri77p  rana  on  DV  73:1) .  Now 
conditions  of  Jewish  life  in  Babylon  were  not  so  bad  in  his  time. 
It  was  the  reign  of  Shapur  II  whose  mother,  Iphra  Hormuzd  ((N~i£5N 
PDTin),  especially  befriended  the  Jews.65  It  is  true  that  Raba 

<"  Cf.  note  55,  end. 

64  Just  the  reverse  was  the  custom  with  regard  to  the  Shema'  which  the 
Palestinians  recited  standing  but  the  Babylonians  sitting  (see  D'JHJD  "jlVn,  ed. 
Miiller,  p.   10;  Gaonic  Responsa,  ed.  Harkavy,  p.  399;  Finkelscherer,  Lewy 
Festschrift,  255). 

65  See  B.  B.  8a,  bottom,  and  lOb,  bottom.    When  Raba  drew  upon  himself 
the  wrath  of  Shapur  because  a  Jew,  whom  he  had  sentenced  to  be  flogged,  died 
as  result  thereof,  Iphra  Hormizd  dissuaded  her  royal  son  from  prosecuting 
Raba  (see  Ta'an.  24b  and  cf.  Mann,  I?NI»'  norm1?  nsixn,  X,  p.  204-6). 


CHANGES  IN  THE  DIVINE  SERVICE  275 

complained  of  heavy  expenses  to  keep  the  authorities  in  good 
humor66  but,  compared  to  contemporaneous  conditions  in  Pales- 
tine during  the  reign  of  Constantius,  the  Babylonian  Jews  could 
regard  themselves  rather  fortunate.  It  seems  therefore  that 
in  commenting  on  the  statement  of  the  Mishnah,  Raba  was  like- 
wise thinking  of  conditions  in  the  Holy  Land.  He  was  well  in- 
formed about  them  from  the  Babylonian  scholars  studying  in 
Palestine  who  had  to  come  back  to  their  native  country  right 
from  the  beginning  of  Constantius'  reign  owing  to  persecutions.67 
He  too  was  informed  of  the  difficulties  which  the  Patriarch 
was  experiencing  with  regard  to  the  fixing  of  the  calendar 
(Sanh.  12a).  How  appropriate  then  was  Raba's  comment  on 
R.  Joshua's  remark  about  conditions  in  Palestine  since  the 
destruction  of  the  Temple  that,  as  things  were  in  his  own  time 
in  the  Holy  Land,  the  evil  ('curse')  seemed  to  grow  from  day 
to  day! 

After  Raba's  comment  we  have  the  passage: 
ion  nnsy  pt*  'toot  Km»n  ton  rro»  NITNI  NTTDI  nzmpx  ?D"po  «p 
el  mini  nvzns  mo  :»"»i)  omo  BT  NH  ,«"3  ,''  ,av«>  OHIO  N1?! 
It  is  evident  that  the  "world"  means  here  the  Jewish 
world  and  that  there  is  a  poignant  allusion  to  the  chaotic  condi- 
tions in  Palestine  owing  to  the  persecutions.  The  question  is 
whether  this  passage  is  a  continuation  by  Raba  himself  or  is  a 
later  addition  by  the  redactors  of  the  Talmud  or  even  by  the 
Saboraim.  It  seems  to  imply  the  proscription  of  tmcn  nzmp 


66  Hag.  5b,  top:  Tap  'a  Njnsa  NJVTPD  nca  in'jn'  »o  :<imV>  mh  <K3-i>  now 
to  "73? 

Of  course  since  337  or  338,  when  Shapur  started  his  long  drawn  war 
against  the  Byzantine  Empire,  the  Jews  in  Babylon  were  subjected  to  heavy 
war  expenses  together  with  the  rest  of  the  population  but  of  a  religious  persecu- 
tion there  is  no  evidence.  As  a  matter  of  fact  while  the  Christian  population 
in  Babylon  was  heavily  punished  for  its  loyalty  towards  Christian  Rome 
(since  339-40)  the  Jews  were  not  molested  (see  Noldeke,  Aufsdtze  zur  pers. 
Geschichte,  98-99).  Cf.  also  Funk,  Juden  in  Babylonien,  II,  41-46,  who,  how- 
ever, has  overdrawn  the  picture  and  several  of  whose  statements  and  supposed 
references  have  to  be  used  with  caution. 

6?  The  so-called  K3iym  'mm.     Cf.  Sherira's  Letter   (ed.   Lewin,  p.  61): 


|on  mm  p  n'rm  .KSID  pri  nimn  KD'yoKi  ''to  KIDP  r'o:i  toil  "3K  'an  nnai 
ton1?  Kn'nn  'mm  in"73i  'D'i  am  fan  ]ija  'K^aa  ]D.  Cf.  also  Halevy,  Tnn,  366  ff., 
455  ff.,  467  ff.,  whose  conclusions  also  need  a  critical  sifting. 


276  JACOB  MANN 

before  the  reading  of  the  Torah  and  the  Kaddish  after  the  preach- 
ings of  the  Rabbis.  These  sanctifications  of  God  recited  under 
difficulties  help  to  preserve  the  Jewish  world  intact.  They  seem 
to  have  been  introduced  already  in  Babylon,  especially  the  form 
of  «-ncn  rremp  in  ]V^>  «ai  as  evolved  in  Palestine  to  outwit  the 
authorities  who  prohibited  it  before  the  reading  of  the  Law.  In 
Babylon  the  N~nDl  nemp  became  a  daily  feature  after  the 
Shaharit  service  in  connection  with  the  study  of  the  Bible  and 
the  Rabbinic  tradition.  If  Raba  is  the  author  of  this  passage, 
we  would  have  to  assume  the  prohibition  of  NTTDI  rwnp  before 
n"np  and  its  insertion  in  fpyff  toi  already  in  the  time  of  Constan- 
tius  for  which,  however,  we  have  no  direct  evidence,  though  the 
general  designation  of  his  rule  as  time  of  ~rot?  would  render  such 
an  assumption  possible.  But  it  is  more  likely  that  the  whole 
interference  with  the  divine  service  of  the  synagogue  dated  from 
553  in  connection  with  Justinian's  law  about  the  Deuterosis. 
Hence  this  passage  in  Sotah  49a  should  be  regarded  as  a  later 
addition  by  the  Saboraim,  who  realizing  the  significance  of  Raba's 
statement  as  reflecting  conditions  in  the  Holy  Land  in  his  own 
time,  adjoined  to  it  an  item  which  resulted  from  Byzantine  intol- 
erance about  two  centuries  later.  By  that  time  Babylonian 
Jewry  too  had  undergone  periods  of  persecutions  under  Yezdejerd 
II,  under  Peroz,  and  under  Kavadh  in  connection  with  the  move- 
ment of  Mazdak.  During  these  trials  they  saw  their  schools  dis- 
banded and  their  synagogues  closed,  the  Shema'  proscribed  as 
well  as  the  Haftarot  from  Deutero-Isaiah  (see  infra,  p.  282  ff.),  the 
Sabbath  desecrated  and  even  their  children  taken  away  from  them 
to  be  brought  up  by  the  Magians.  Though  in  the  second  half  of 
the  6th  century  the  force  of  Magian  intolerance  was  not  so  oppres- 
sive, the  Jewish  position  seems  to  have  been  still  insecure.  Sher- 
ira  in  his  Letter  reports  of  troubles  and  persecutions  right  down 
to  the  close  of  the  Persian  period  which  prevented  the  schools 
from  functioning  properly  and  altogether  hampered  the  pursuit 
of  the  study  of  Judaism.68  Hence  in  Babylon  too  the  Jewish 
world  was  declared  to  exist  on  tenon  ramp  and  «m  rpo»  «rv  \o» 
after  the  sermons.  These  sanctifications  kept  alive  in  the  hearts 

68  See  above,  p.  258. 


CHANGES  IN  THE  DIVINE  SERVICE  277 

of  the  people  the  principle  of  monotheism  and  the  hope  of  the 
Redemption.  Thus  the  whole  significant  Talmudic  passage  in 
Sotah  49a,  when  properly  illumined,  casts  additional  light  on  the 
problem  of  NTFDI  nemp  as  discussed  in  the  previous  pages. 

Ill 
OBJECTIONS  TO  THE  DAILY  'AMIDAH. 

1.  The  prohibition  of  reciting  the  daily  'Amidah  in  Palestine 
is  expressly  reported  by  Yehudai  Gaon  (above  p.  253,  cf.  note  15), 
no  doubt  owing  to  benediction  12,  the  well-known  D'ran  roia, 
which  in  the  Palestinian  version  had  a  direct  reference  to  the 
Christians  (annn).  It  is  not  stated  since  when  this  proscription 
came  into  force.  Though  Yehudai  probably  speaks  of  the  last 
period  of  Byzantine  rule  in  Palestine  (since  its  reconquest  from 
the  Persians  by  Heraclius,  629),  the  prohibition  may  have  been 
older  and  was  re-enacted  after  the  reconquest  (see  above  p.  254). 
Epiphanius,  himself  a  native  of  Palestine,  in  his  famous  work 
against  the  heresies  (the  Panarion,  begun  in  374)  refers  to  this 
benediction  recited  three  times  daily  and  likewise  Jerome  who 
lived  many  years  in  Palestine  (after  385  till  his  death  in  420) ,69 

In  the  absence  of  any  definite  information  we  have  to  assume 
that  the  prohibition  started  under  Justinian  about  the  same  time 
when  the  Shema'  and  the  Deuterosis  were  forbidden.  But  per- 
haps the  references  to  this  benediction  by  Epiphanius  and  Jerome 
caused  the  authorities  to  decree  the  proscription  still  earlier. 
What  substitute  was  discovered  by  the  Rabbis  is  also  unknown. 
Should  we  say  that  the  shortened  'Amidah,  three  versions  of 
which  have  been  preserved  in  the  Palestinian  ritual  for  Minhah,70 
originally  served  as  a  substitute  for  the  proscribed  full  'Amidah? 
Later  on  in  the  Muslim  period,  when  the  full  'Amidah  could  again 
be  recited,  these  shortened  'Amidot  then  were  relegated  to  the 
Minhah  service.  The  direct  reference  to  the  Christians  had  in 
course  of  time  to  be  omitted — as  was  only  proper.  How  long  the 
original  form  was  preserved  in  Babylon  is  also  difficult  to  say. 

6»  See  the  passages  cited  by  Schiirer,  Geschichte  d.  jiid.  Volkes,  4th  ed.,  II, 
544,  note  161.    Cf.  also  Krauss,  JQR,  V,  130  ff. 
'°See  Mann,  300-302,  309-11. 


278  JACOB  MANN 

Only  one  version  of  'Amram  has  a  more  or  less  similar  formula- 
tion of  the  benediction  to  that  of  the  Palestinian  ritual.71  In 
Babylon  Jews  and  Christians  were  more  friendly  to  each  other 
especially  since  they  would  frequently  share  the  common  into- 
lerance of  Magian  fanaticism.  Therefore  it  may  be  assumed  that 
the  Jewish  leaders  found  it  advisable  to  leave  out  this  obnoxious 
reference.  The  burden  of  the  benediction  was  directed  more 
against  lawbreakers  within  the  Jewish  fold  —  informers,  apostates, 
and  heretics.72 

2.  From  the  statement  of  the  Church  fathers  it  is  evident 
that  the  'Amidah  was  recited  in  Palestine  also  at  Ma'arib  though 
this  was  not  obligatory  (man  rrmy  nVsn).  Now  a  report  that  is 
not  earlier  than  the  second  half  of  the  13th  century  connects  the 
third  section  in  Ma'arib  after  the  Shema',  viz.  the  one  beginning 
with  PHI  ]DK  cbw1?  '"'  ira,  with  the  prohibition  of  the  'Amidah. 
This  passage  was  supposed  to  consist  of  verses  mentioning  the 
divine  name  18  times  corresponding  to  JTIB!?.73  But  it  is  rather 
strange  that  the  Palestinian  liturgy,  as  preserved  in  the  Genizah, 
has  not  at  all  this  passage74  though,  of  course,  it  could  be  argued 
that  it  was  omitted  in  the  Muslim  period  when  the  'Amidah  was 
reinstituted  in  Ma'arib.  The  Geonim  speak  only  in  a  general 
way  of  the  passage  having  been  introduced  by  the  later  scholars 
('Nina  ]33"i),  viz.  of  the  Saboraic  period.75  But  Rashi  was  led  into 
evolving  a  theory  of  how  the  Babylonian  scholars  composed  this 
section  and  forwarded  it  as  a  gift  to  the  sages  of  Yabneh  in  lieu  of 

71  See  Marx,  Untersuchungen  z.  Siddur  des  Gaon  R.  Amram,  Hebrew  part, 
pp.  5-6. 

72  The  various  forms  of  this  benediction  need  not  be  discussed  here.    See 
Berliner,  Raudbemerkungen  zum  tiigl.  Gebctbuche,  I,  50  ff.,  and  also  the  literature 
cited  by  Elbogen,  2nd  ed.,  pp.  516,  519. 

"  See  N'aen  n'w,  I,  No.  14:  'O'a'  n:prm  nrorn  rp  na  »»  .  .  .-jVion  nma  "73« 


(insert  n"'  IDS  nrorto  n''  na  vv  nan  a  nm«  upni  VTDJM  ^Vsnn1?  vhv  nrw  invn 
.nnnn  Ta  nana  nms  m«»:  .mm  nVaat?  s'yw  .n'jBnap  niana 
Abudraham,  ed.  Prague,  43a,  quotes  the  same  in  the  name  of  rnaruon  "?ya,  viz 
Asher  b.  Saul  of  Lunel,  author  of  nunaon  IBD,  who  lived  in  the  14th  century 
(see  Gross,  Gallia  Judaica,  281)  and  hence  after  Rashba  (who  died  in  1310). 

™  See  Mann,  pp.  304-5,  which  is  now  modified  by  the  present  remarks. 

75  See  Na^ronai's  responsum  in  'Amram,  ed.  Warsaw,  I,  25a,  and  'Ittim, 
pp.  172-3.  See  also  'Amram,  I,  19a. 


CHANGES  IN  THE  DIVINE  SERVICE  279 

the  y'MZV  received  from  them76 — a  theory  that  is  impossible  on  the 
surface  since  the  whole  section  is  not  mentioned  in  the  Talmud  at 
all.  The  Mishnah  laying  down  the  rule  that  at  Ma'arib  the 
Shema'  should  be  followed  by  two  benedictions  (Ber.  1.4)  would 
certainly  not  have  overlooked  the  third  section  had  it  been 
already  in  the  hands  of  the  scholars  of  Yabneh.  The  Gaonic 
tradition  of  its  later  origin  is  correct  though  it  need  not  have  been 
composed  in  Babylon  by  the  Saboraim  but  in  their  time  in  Pales- 
tine as  a  result  of  the  prohibition  of  the  'Amidah,  probably  by 
Justinian,  hence  in  the  6th  century  in  the  Saboraic  period.  This 
would  be  borne  out  by  the  report  of  Ibn  Yarhi  (Manhig,  p.  22b) 
who  traces  it  to  3~iyo  HPJN,  viz.  the  scholars  of  Palestine.  The 
very  fact  that  the  sources  speak  of  18  m~DfN  and  not  19  (only 
Ibn  Yarhi  has  19)  would  indicate  a  Palestinian  origin  where 
the  'Amidah  consisted  of  18  benedictions  only.  It  is  difficult  to 
state  certainties  on  this  matter  owing  to  lack  of  evidence  but  the 
Palestinian  origin  of  "jVian  ro-n  should  not  be  ruled  out  of  likeli- 
hood.77 The  section  was  taken  over  by  the  Babylonian  Jews 
though  they  could  recite  the  'Amidah  and  hence  it  had  been 
retained  even  later  on  whereas  in  Palestine  it  disappeared  with 
the  re-introduction  of  the  Ma'arib  'Amidah  after  the  conquest  of 
the  Holy  Land  by  the  Arabs.  The  report  concerning  the  "TOP, 
though  mentioned  first  by  R.  Solomon  ibn  Adret,  may  go  back  to 
a  much  earlier  source  and  need  not  have  been  invented  by  him 
especially  as  he  was  no  doubt  aware  of  the  other  explanations 
given  for  -j^iDn  ro-a. 

IV 

CHANGES  IN  CONNECTION  WITH  THE  READING  OF  THE  TORAH 
ANA  THE  PROPHETS. 

1.  A  restrictive  regulation  of  the  manner  of  reading  the  Torah 
and  the  Prophets  was  enacted  by  Justinian  in  the  famous  Novella 
146  (in  February  553).  If  we  follow  Juster's  interpretation78,  the 

76  See  the  curious  passage  in  Pardes,  ed.  Ehrenreich,  304,  Vitry,  78,  Siddur 
Rashi,  213-14,  Vrap,  p.  21a  (where  it  is  expressly  quoted  in  the  name  of  Rashi). 

77  See  Elbogen,  p.  102-5,  and  notes  (2nd  ed.)(  P-  529,  whose  remarks  on 
the  problem  are  somewhat  inexact. 

78  See  Juster,  Les  Juifs  dans  U  Empire  Remain,  1914,  I,  369  ff.    Juster  (p. 


280  JACOB  MANN 

dispute  about  substituting  for  the  Hebrew  reading  with  its  Ara- 
maic translation  (Targum)  a  reading  in  the  Greek  language,  as 
demanded  by  a  number  of  Jews,  gave  the  occasion  to  the  Em- 
peror, when  the  matter  came  to  his  notice,  to  regulate  the  divine 
service  of  the  synagogue.  While  granting  freedom  to  the  wor- 
shippers to  have  the  Bible  read  in  the  language  understood  by 
them,  either  in  Greek  in  the  translation  of  the  LXX  or  in  that  of 
Aquila  (but  in  no  other  version),  or  in  Italian,  he  forbade  at  the 
same  time  the  Deuterosis,  evidently  meaning  thereby  the  Oral 
Law  which  was  the  basis  upon  which  the  Rabbis  developed  their 
themes  in  addressing  the  worshippers  after  the  reading  of  the 
Biblical  lessons.  In  interpreting  these  lessons  they  would  quote 
statements  of  the  sages  from  Mishnah,  Talmud  or  Midrash  intro- 
ducing them  by  a  formula  such  as  O'DDn  "\yy  or  pan  un,  hence 
using  the  verb  n:P  (Aramaic  '3n)  from  which  rwtPD  =  ^eurcpcocrts 
is  derived.79  The  prohibition  of  the  sermons  meant  that  the 
people  were  deprived  of  Halakhic  instruction  and  of  Aggadic 
emulation,  for  these  usually  formed  the  themes  of  the  sermons  in 
connection  with  a  Rabbinic  interpretation  of  the  Biblical  lessons 

370,  note  3)  argues  (against  Graetz)  that  the  Greek  was  to  supplant  the 
Hebrew  according  to  the  demand  of  a  minority  section  of  the  Jews.  On  the 
other  hand  Krauss  (Studien  zur  byz.-jud.  Geschichte,  pp.  58  and  60)  follows 
Graetz's  view  that  this  demand,  granted  by  the  Emperor,  meant  only  the 
elimination  of  the  Targum  and  the  substituting  for  it  the  Greek  version  side 
by  side  of  the  original  Hebrew. 

79  In  the  writings  of  the  Church  fathers  the  term  usually  stands  for  Mish- 
nah (see  the  passages  cited  by  Juster,  p.  372,  note  6)  which  term  denoted  "the 
Oral  Law  and  its  parallel  to  tnpo,  the  term  for  Scripture  and  its  study"  (see 
Bacher,  Exegetische  Terminologie,  I,  122).  Cf.  the  interesting  passage  of 
Epiphanius  (cited  by  Juster) :  Quantae  traditiones  Pharisaeorum  sint,  quas 

hodie  vocant  dtVTep&criv,  et  quam  aniles  fabulae  evolvere  nequeo 

Unde  et  doctores  eorum  <ro<poi  (  =  D'D3n),  hoc  est  sapientes,  vocantur.  Et 
si  quando  certis  diebus  traditiones  suas  exponunt,  discipulis  suis  solent  dicere: 
oi  ffotpoL  devTep&aiv  (=o'DDn  UP,  cf.,  e.g.,  Abot  6.1:  roson  pvhi  D'nsn  u»),  id 
est,  sapientes  docent  traditiones. 

Krauss,  p.  61,  overlooked  the  fact  that  the  sermons  were  based  on  the 
Deuterosis  and  therefore  jumped  to  the  conclusion  that  Justinian  ordered  the 
closing  of  the  schools  for  which  there  is  no  evidence.  For  other  explanations 
see  also  Eppenstein,  Beitrage  zur  Geschichte  u.  Literatur  im  geon.  Zeitalter,  26, 
note  4,  where  various  views  are  given. 


CHANGES  IN  THE  DIVINE  SERVICE  281 

read  at  the  service.  A  reminiscence  of  the  occasion  of  this  pro- 
hibition we  have  in  the  phrase  izxnm  mvn  uop'  xbv  (in  the 
passage  cited  above,  p.  268,  note  54).  Moreover  the  report  of 
Yehudai  Gaon  about  conditions  in  Palestine  prior  to  Arab  con- 
quest (above  p.  253)  clearly  refers  to  a  previous  impossibility  of 
studying  the  Torah  (mim  pioy1?  (i.e.  the  Arabs)  oirrm),  viz.  to 
expound  the  Oral  Law  at  the  services,  and  it  also  indicates  that 
the  nnoyo,  i.e.  the  Piyyutim,  were  recited  on  Sabbath  morning, 
which  contained  the  very  elements  of  the  sermons,  viz.  inm  "lias 
(Halakhah)  and  Aggadah. 

This  statement  of  Yehudai  Gaon  can  now  be  used  as  the 
earliest  account  in  connection  with  the  modern  theory  of  the  rise 
of  the  Piyyut.80  It  corroborates  the  statement  of  'Ittim*1  in  the 
name  of  Gaonic  authorities  (Kniim)  that  the  Piyyut  was  insti- 
tuted at  a  time  of  ~TD2>  "when  they  (the  Rabbis)  could  not  mention 
the  words  of  the  Torah  (viz.  the  Oral  Law)  because  the  enemies 
decreed  upon  Israel  not  to  study  the  Torah  (rrnra  pioy^)",  exactly 
the  same  phrase  as  in  Yehudai's  statement.  Thus  Elbogen's 
argument82  that  Judah  b.  Barzillai's  account  is  similar  to  that  of 
the  apostate  Samuel  ibn  Yahya  al-Magrebi,  who  traced  the  origin 
of  the  Piyyut  to  the  persecutions  in  Babylon  and  in  Persia  due  to 
the  Magians,83  falls  to  the  ground.  Either  this  apostate  confused 
the  reports  or  it  may  be  that  during  the  troubles  and  persecutions 
at  the  end  of  the  Persian  rule  in  Babylon,  as  reported  by  Sherira 
(above,  p.  258),  the  Jewish  services  were  interfered  with  and  the 
Piyyut  was  used  as  a  substitute  for  the  Rabbinic  instruction. 
But  there  is  ground  to  believe  that  the  Piyyut  as  such  originated 
in  Palestine  as  a  result  of  Justinian's  prohibition  of  the  Deutero- 

80  See  Eppenstein,  p.  26  ff.,  and  cf.  also  Davidson,  Mafrzor  Yannai,  XVI 
ff.,  whose  theory  of  the  cryptic  language  of  the  Piyyutim  may  however  need 
still  further  substantiation. 

81  P.  252:  nyra  «"?«  |pn)  K"?r  «mm^  K&  'tn  ]«no»D^  o!?iyn  unit  i^«  ]»BTB»  jy 
K^P  ^K"it'  "?y  o'3'wn  jnni  rn  »a  mm  nan  T9nn  ]^y  vn  «"?»  '»o  .nin^a  lorn 
'oy1?  Tnrn^i  notn^  n^snn  ^33  ]n^  |'3pno  OHTSP  D'osn  vn  ]3  ^yi  ,min3  pioy1? 
nvnni  mnnr  ini3  nixon  'pnpn  mnsr  nis^m  D'3io  D'D'  ni3^m  JPQ  in  ma'yn  ^HKH 

.a'DVDi  mmm 

8J  Derjiid.  Gottesdienst,  283. 
«J  See  Schreiner,  M.  C.  W.  J.,  XLII,  221. 


282  JACOB  MANN 

sis  and  that  it  took  the  place  of  the  preachings  of  the  Rabbis.84 
It  continued  to  flourish  even  after  the  era  of  religious  freedom  had 
set  in  with  the  conquest  of  Arabs.  R.  Yehudai's  criticism  against 
the  nnoyD,  the  Paitanic  insertions  in  the  Sabbath  'Amidah  con- 
taining ~inm  TIDN  and  Aggadah  and  breaking  the  scheme  of  the 
ritual,  seems  to  have  had  little  effect  in  Palestine.  He  could  not 
stamp  out  the  Piyyu£  even  in  Babylon,  though  he  and  several 
other  Geonim  subsequently  had  tried  to  limit  its  extent.85  The 
Piyyut  spread  from  Palestine  to  the  whole  of  Byzantium  and  to 
Southern  Italy,  where  Byzantine  intolerance  continued  for  a  long 
time,  and  from  there  to  other  European  countries.  However, 
this  is  not  the  place  to  describe  the  growth  and  the  spread  of  the 
Piyyut  as  the  discussion  here  is  only  limited  to  the  accounts  of 
its  having  found  a  prominent  place  in  the  divine  service  of  the 
synagogue  as  a  result  of  persecutions  ("T02>). 

2.  On  the  other  hand  the  report  that  the  very  reading  of  the 
Haftarah  from  the  Prophets  having  been  a  substitute  for  the 
reading  from  the  Pentateuch,  which  had  been  proscribed  by  An- 
tiochus  Epiphanes,86  does  not  seem  to  have  any  historical  basis. 
In  the  persecution  of  Antiochus  the  whole  existence  of  Judaism 
was  involved  and  not  a  mere  item  of  the  service  such  as  the  read- 
ing of  the  Torah.  More  credence,  however,  is  to  be  given  to  the 
reports  concerning  the  Haftarot  read  in  Babylon  at  the  Minhah 
service  on  Sabbath  which  had  to  be  abolished  on  account  of  their 
proscription  by  the  Persian  government.  This  government  action 
(fcTTDtp)  is  reported  briefly  without  indicating  its  cause  by  R. 
Natronai  in  a  responsum  which  reads  (Geonica,  1  1  ,  302,  No.  XXVI)  : 
rrnm  ?(Sabb.  24a)  maa  nn:m  «'an  TB-jnn  ino  (an^pt)  'vw 
,(read  N':un)  «'aa  rrjwa  p'taso  vn  naaa  nmoa  pip  vm> 


84  Cf.  also  the  passage  in  Pardes,  ed.  Ehrenreich,  p.  229:  ^n  ~(23V  'sVi 
pyn  'aval  rmanpi  emo  oipaa  nay  nayDrm  nosm  (read  n^n>  .  See  also  Epstein, 
M.  G.  W.  J.,  XLIV,  p.  295-6,  and  Davidson,  I.e.,  XVI. 

»sSee  Ben-Baboi's  objections  (REJ.,  vol.  70,  130-131,  133)  based  on 
R.  Yehudai's  and  see  Eppenstein,  I.e.,  p.  39  ff.  On  the  other  hand  see  the 
defence  of  the  Piyyutfm  by  R.  Gershom  Meor  Haggolah  (in  ^YQ0,  ed.  Buber. 
25-6),  and  Pardes,  I.e. 

86  See  Abudraham,  ed.  Prague,  52b,  and  Elijah  Levita  ('3»n,  s.v.  IDS). 
The  latter  has  a  report  which  ascribes  to  persecution  to  Antiochus  Epiphanes. 
See  also  Elbogen,  p.  175. 


CHANGES  IN  THE  DIVINE  SERVICE  283 


nm  .ppioB  ''  ?y  1'S'oio  vn  K?I  ,rry»'a»  moron  iui 

insert)  ip^Dtp  |V3i  .Tasn1?.8? 
The  original  custom  of  Haftarot  at  Sabbath  Minhah  is  no  doubt 
Babylonian  being  in  explicit  contradiction  to  the  Palestinian  rite 
as  laid  down  in  the  Mishnah  (Meg.  4.1:  ]'~np  nrooa  raBQi  'm  'an 

Rab  (who  returned  to  Babylon  about 


219  C.  E.,  as  usually  accepted)  refers  to  the  Haftarot  at  Sabbath 
Minhah  in  Babylon  as  well-established.88 

87  This  responsum  is  also  to  be  found  in  I'n,  No.  95  (among  other  responsa 
of  Natronai)  and  is  further  cited  in  his  name  by  R.  Isaiah  di  Trani  (yiaon  'a,  ed. 
Livorno,  20b,  bottom).  Rashi  (to  Sabb.  24a,  s.  v.  TUBon)  cites  it  anonymously 
and  incompletely:  nmoa  ninapa  N'an  Nnp1?  D^TI  vnz>  O'JiNJn  niawna  VINXO 
"!3i  nwy1?  tibv  mn  nn  D"ons  'O'ai  ,0'piDB  me>y;   thus  leaving  out  the  essen- 
tial detail  of  rry»'3»  mam  which  helps  to  ascertain  the  reason  of  the  proscrip- 
tion by  the  government. 

Graetz,  M.  G.  W.  J.,  1887,  554-55,  wrongly  explains  the  responsum  in 
l*n  to  refer  to  a  Byzantine  persecution,  even  suggesting  that  D"D"ifl  ':»ai  is  a 
corruption,  due  to  the  censor,  for  o"on  ':»ai.  But  the  reading  3"D1D  is  now 
well-established  by  the  Genizah  text  (in  Geonica)  which,  needless  to  say,  was 
not  subject  to  the  whim  of  a  Christian  censor.  Graetz's  other  arguments  are 
feeble  as  all  ones  e  silentio  are.  Moreover  in  Palestine  Haftarot  at  Sabbath 
Minhah  were  never  in  vogue  as  shown  above  in  the  text. 

88  Sabb.  24a  bottom:    an  io«  nino  an  now  mno  an  na  'mrm  an  no«i 
I'N  na»  K^O^KP  B'V  "?E>  Tarn1?  X'N  nara  nn:oa  N'a:a  TDBDH  (so  in  MS.  Munich) 
o'va   nn:D3   K'aj.    This  reading  is  also  in   'Ittim,   271,  top.     In   Hai  Gaon's 
responsum  N3T  is  evidently  a  misprint  because  R.  Matnah  was  a  colleague 
of  R.  Yehudah  b.  Ezekiel  (Ber.  lib).    The  French  Tosafists  indeed  realized 
the  contradiction  with  the  statement  in  the  Mishnah   (so  R.   Isaac  ]prn  in 
Tosafot,  ibid.,s.v.  N^D^KP)  but  the  reply  of  R.  Tarn  is  wholly  unsatisfactory. 
He  suggests  that  by   "prophet"  the  Hagiographa  are  meant  similar  to  the 
custom  in  Nehardea  to  read  passages  from  them  at  Sabbath  Minhah  (Sabb. 
116b:   Knasn  nnmaa  D'3ina3  NVTD  'pDB  Nynni3).     But  the  whole  passage 
there  refers  to  study  at  the  Bet  Hammidrash  and  not  to  the  service  in  the 
synagogue  as  has  been  rightly  pointed  out  by  R.  Isaiah  di  Trani  (ynaon  'o 
20c):  imp  IN  D'3in33  D'znn  vn0  «"?{«  onn  yoro  N"?  NTVD  'pos  'urn  ^  nun:  irm 
D'3i^>  o'nn  rn  N"?  i^axr  nnt«p  Ton'a  JDI  on1?  n'n  «"?»a  n3»3  nmo3  nn3.    R. 
Isaiah  after  deducing  evidence  concludes  (20d):  yovo  «"?  «nTO  'poo  ND'TK 
mofln  «"?i  n»m  (read  perhaps  |'jy^)  pa1?  N"?N.   It  is  evident  that  R.  Tam  did 
not  know  of  the  respective  Gaonic  responsa,  which  explicitly  indicate  Haftarot 
from  the  Prophets,  as  otherwise  he  would  not  have  made  his  fallacious  sug- 
gestion.  He  also  did  not  have  the  emendation  n303  nvr6  *?nv  37,  which  Judah 
ibn  Barzillai  mentions  ('Ittim,  271,  top).    It  is  evidently  a  later  change  by 


284  JACOB  MANN 

The  custom  must  have  been  in  vogue  in  Babylon  long  before 
the  Mishnah  became  there  the  accepted  code  and  the  object  of 
intensive  study  in  the  schools  since  the  times  of  Rab  and  Samuel, 
or  else  it  would  have  been  abolished  by  reason  of  its  contraditcion 
with  the  proscription  in  the  Mishnah.  The  exalted  orations  of 
Deutero-Isaiah,  by  which  the  rvyB>'3B>  mom  are  evidently  meant,89 
were  especially  precious  to  the  Jews  in  Babylon  and  in  Persia 
since  they  dealt  with  conditions  of  the  exiles  in  Babylon.  Who 
knows  whether  their  recital  was  not  instituted  in  Babylon  during 
the  early  Persian  period  before  the  conquest  of  the  country  by 
Alexander  the  Great?  Living  in  a  social  environment  where 
Zorastrianism  was  predominant,  how  better  could  the  Jewish 
spiritual  leaders  impress  upon  their  people  the  monotheistic 
principles  of  their  faith  than  with  such  a  passage  as  Is.  45.1-7, 
especially  verse  7  :  *?3  nvy  'n  ':N  jn  Kim  m^v  nvy  "pn  torn  TIN  TJCV 
n^N?9°  For  a  group  living  in  a  heathen  environment  and  away  from 
the  center  in  Palestine,  such  as  the  Babylonian  Jews  were,  the  glow- 
ing fervor  and  exaltation  of  the  chapters  of  Deutero-Isaiah  indeed 
were  admirably  suited  for  public  reading  on  Sabbath  afternoons. 
The  aim  of  these  prophecies,  in  the  words  of  Driver  (Introduction 
to  the  Literature  of  the  O.  T.,  8th  ed.,  pp.  230-31),  "to  arouse  the 
indifferent,  to  reassure  the  wavering,  to  expostulate  with  the 
doubting,  to  announce  with  triumphant  confidence  the  certainty 


copyists  against  which  already  R.  Zerahya  Hallevi  (iiND  to  Alfasi,  Sabb.  a./.) 
protests. 

89  Though  the  Talmud  (  B.  B.  14b)  regards  the  whole  of  Isaiah  as  contain- 
ing "consolations"  (Knom  rr!?i3  rryBH,  cf.  also  Ber.  57b:  rrj?0'  ODD  ai^na)  n«nn 
nomV  nsx1),  evidently  referring  to  the  cheerful  visions  to  be  found  in  chapts. 
1-39  (e.  g.  2.1-4;  9.1-6;  c.  11-12;  etc.),  the  term  rvyr'30  niom  stood  for 
sections  chiefly  taken  from  Is.  40  ff.,  though  chs.  34-35  may  have  been  included. 
It  should  be  noted  that  the  Haftarot  for  mm  rue*  and  onward,  the  well  known 
Nnonn  nyiv  (to  be  discussed  later  on),  are  all  taken  from  Deutero-Isaiah.  About 
Isaiah,  as  the  prophet  of  consolation,  see  also  S.  E.  R.,  c.  16,  pp.  82-3. 

90  About  the  insertion  of  this  verse  in  a  modified  form  (viz.  ^3n  n«  10131  for 
y~\  toui)  in  the  morning  service  for  the  purpose  of  emphasizing  monotheism 
against  Zoroastrianism,  see  the  attractive  theory  of  Blau,  REJ.,  vol.  31,  pp. 
190  ff.    Who  knows  whether  originally  the  benediction  TIN  T*v  did  not  end 
with  jn  NTQI?    Cf.  Ber.  lib  where  the  change  is  explained  to  be  due  to  a 
desire  of  using  a  more  auspicious  language  (to^yo  tw^). 


CHANGES  IN  THE  DIVINE  SERVICE  285 

of  the  coming  restoration" — held  good  for  a  long  time  after  their 
first  pronouncement.91 

The  Haftarot  from  the  "consolations"  of  Deutero- Isaiah  at 
Sabbath  Minhah  thus  were  probably  continued  to  be  recited  in 
Babylon  and  Persia  for  several  centuries  till  the  Sassanids  came  to 
power  in  226  in  the  time  of  Rab.  As  the  Talmud  does  not 
mention  anywhere  of  their  having  been  proscribed  by  the  new 
government,  we  may  assume  that  the  Jews  followed  their  time- 
honored  ritual  throughout  the  Talmudic  period.  The  prohibi- 
tion, recorded  by  R.  Natronai,  probably  took  place  during  the 
fanaticism  in  consequence  of  the  movement  of  Mazdak  which 
brought  great  trials  upon  the  Babylonian  Jews  towards  the  end 
of  the  5th  century  and  the  beginning  of  the  6th.  A  verse  like 
Is.  45.7  was  regarded  as  a  distinct  challenge  to  the  principle  of 
dualism.  Another  objection  may  have  been  found  by  the  fanati- 
cal Magians  in  the  reference  to  Cyrus  (Is.  44.28,  45.1)  as  achieving 
his  glory  for  the  sake  of  Israel  (see  Is.  45.4)  since  his  memory  was 
greatly  revered  by  the  Magians  as  the  champion  of  Zoroastrian- 
ism.  Altogether  the  great  emphasis  of  Deutero-Isaiah  on  the 
nature  of  God  as  "the  Creator,  the  Sustainer  of  the  universe,  the 
Life-Giver,  the  Author  of  history,  the  First  and  the  Last,  the 
Incomparable  One"  (in  the  words  of  Driver,  ibid.  p.  242)  together 
with  the  glowing  pictures  of  the  restoration  of  Israel  and  the 
triumph  of  Zion  must  have  been  offensive  to  the  spokesmen  of 
Zorastrianism."  Hence  these  Haftarot  recited  at  Sabbath 

91  But  it  should  not  be  overlooked  that  Isaiah  was  a  favorite  book  espec- 
ially in  Palestine  for  the  Haftarot  of  the  Triennial  Cycle.  Out  of  the  45  Hafta- 
rot  to  Genesis,  29  are  from  Isaiah  and  out  of  the  29  to  Exodus,  18  are  from  this 
prophet  (see  Dr.  Buchler's  discussion  of  the  problem,  JQR.,  VI,  54  and  60). 
Several  of  these  Haftarot  are  from  ch.  40  ff.  Were  we  to  know  the  exact 
Haftarot  in  Babylon  at  Sabbath  Minhali  it  would  be  of  interest  to  trace  how 
many  of  them  corresponded  to  the  Palestinian  Haftarot  from  Isaiah  at  the 
morning  service.  Who  knows  whether  the  many  Palestinian  Haftarot  elim- 
inated in  Babylon  owing  to  the  Annual  Cycle  had  not  found  again  their  place 
in  the  Minhah  services? 

»a  Both  Rappaport  (j'^D  -py,  ed.  Warsaw,  I,  336)  and  Weiss  (Tm,  IV, 
p.  5,  note  7)  missed  the  right  point  in  trying  to  explain  the  reason  of  the  pro- 
hibition. Altogether  Rappaport's  remarks  on  this  problem  of  the  Minhah 
Haftarot  have  been  rightly  criticized  by  Schorr  (yi^nn,  II,  143-4). 


286  JACOB  MANN 

Minhah  were  proscribed  and  were  not  again  re-introduced  in 
Babylon  even  after  the  intolerance  had  ceased,  evidently  because 
of  the  fact  that  the  Haftarah  of  Minhah  was  against  the  Mishnaic 
prescription.  Yet  as  late  as  in  time  of  Hai  Gaon  there  were  still 
distant  congreations  in  Elam  and  in  the  islands  of  the  Persian 
Gulf,  who  retained  the  custom,93  probably  because  the  proscrip- 
tion of  the  central  government  at  Ctesiphon  in  Babylon  had  no- 
sustaining  power  enough  to  reach  these  outlying  communities 
among  whom  then  the  Haftarot  at  Sabbath  Minhah  had  never 
gone  out  of  practice.94  The  whole  custom  of  Haftarot  at  Sabbath 
Minhah  was  one  of  the  old  differences  in  custom  between  Pales- 
tine and  Babylon  (as  Schor  in  note  111  to  'Ittim,  p.  271,  rightly 
pointed  out)  just  as  the  difference  of  the  Triennial  and  Annual 
Cycles  respectively.  The  collection  of  differences  (cnruo  !"frn) 
between  these  two  countries,  emanating  from  the  Gaonic  period, 
however,  no  longer  mentions  this  item  because  at  that  time  it  had 
already  long  been  abolished  in  Babylon,  the  seat  of  the  academies. 
3.  Since  the  readings  from  Deutero-Isaiah  were  proscribed  in 
Babylon,  probably  during  the  Mazdak  movement,  the  question 
arises  with  regard  to  the  Haftarot  from  the  9th  of  Ab  to  New 
Year,  known  as  Nnortn  nya^,  which  were  taken  exclusively  from 
Is.  40  ff.  Dr.  Buchler  (/.  Q.  R.,Vl,  64  ff.)  was  on  the  right  track 
in  suggesting  that  these  Haftarot  had  originated  in  Palestine. 
Elbogen  (p.  178,  see  notes  (2nd  ed.)  p.  545)  has  really  no  evidence 
for  his  suggestion  that  they  were  ordained  "probably  in  Babylon." 
Dr.  Buchler  's  theory  is  now  strengthened  by  the  remarkable 
discovery  of  H.  St.  John  Thackeray  (The  Septuagint  and  Jewish 


«  'Itim,  p.  271:  rrn  unjDP  .  .  .vim  *pm  ]n  I^NI  .  .  .;i«3  "«n  iran^  |^>  vn 
nmo1?  py  am  WV  NmaDN  nso  v  ]"tjn  ,n3»a  nrnoa  TTDSDP  mnn  nioipon 


,n'y»'3  Knom  I'unn  (read  nnn»i>  nnnz>  NmaBN  -inn  .Nnom  n1?  jmpi  ru»  hzh 
.veoy  iy  m  |*^'n»  D~\B  bv  DTI  "Hi  o^'y  p-inn  moipn  P'i  .n'DTa  unom 
'Ittim  does  not  quote  Hai's  responsum  fully  (see  the  different  version  in  llNon 
to  Alfasi,  a.  !.)•  The  phrase  rvoTa  Nnom  seems  to  me  to  be  spurious  in  view  of 
the  fact  that  in  B.  B.  14b  the  book  of  Jeremiah  is  described  as  toa-nn  n'Vis  (cf. 
also  Ber.  57b:  nujnisl?  2NT  rvDT  (~\BD  mVna)  n«nn),  though  of  course  there 
are  several  passages  that  could  have  been  selected  containing  consolations. 

»*  This  removes  the  difficulty  raised  by  Dr.  Ginzberg,  Geonica,  II,  298, 
who  likewise  failed  to  realize  the  reason  of  the  proscription  of  the  Haftarah  at 
Sabbath  Minhah. 


CHANGES  IN  THE  DIVINE  SERVICE  287 

Worship,  1921,  pp.  84  and  100)  that  the  consolatory  portion  of 
Baruch  corresponds  more  or  less  to  these  consolation  Haftarot 
being  dependent  also  on  Deutero-Isaiah,  just  as  the  previous 
portions  of  this  apocryphal  book  correspond  to  the  three  Haftarot 
of  Punishment  (stfrujnsn  'a)  preceding  the  9th  of  Ab  as  well  as  to 
the  readings  on  the  fast  day  itself  (from  Jeremiah  and  Job).  If 
Thackeray's  ingenious  theory  be  right,  then  the  Haftarot  of 
Consolation  are  much  earlier  than  the  date  suggested  by  Dr. 
Biichler  (ibid.  p.  72),  viz.  the  post-Talmudical  times.  However, 
in  Babylon  these  Haftarot  from  the  n'y»'a»  mom  were  never 
introduced  simply  because  the  local  ritual  used  Isaiah's  Consola- 
tions as  Haftarot  on  every  Sabbath  at  Minhah  including  the 
seven  Sabbaths  between  the  9th  of  Ab  and  New  Year.95  With 
the  proscription  of  these  Minhiah  Haftarot  towards  the  end  of  the 
5th  century  it  would  have  been  dangerous  to  adopt  the  "Seven 
Consolation"  Haftarot  as  the  morning  Haftarot  during  these 
seven  weeks.  This  cycle  of  7  Haftarot  thus  evidently  found  no 
entrance  in  the  Babylonian  ritual  before  the  beginning  of  the 
Muslim  period.  Since  the  Minhah  Haftarot  were  not  re-intro- 
duced, in  spite  of  the  removal  of  their  proscription  with  the  over- 
throw of  the  Sassanids,  because  of  the  explicit  statement  in  the 
Mishnah  that  at  Sabbath  Minhah  there  should  be  no  Haftarah, 
the  cycle  of  Nnonn  nyn»  from  Deutero-Isaiah  was  thus  adopted 
in  Babylon  for  these  seven  weeks  in  accordance  with  the  Palestin- 
ian custom. 

V 
OTHER  ITEMS. 

In  this  section  some  items  pertaining  to  the  divine  service  of 
the  synagogue  will  be  discussed  that  underwent  changes  prior  to 
the  Byzantine  and  Sassanid  periods  respectively.  The  case  of  the 
Decalogue  in  the  liturgy  entails  a  change  brought  about  by  no 

95  Dr.  Buchler  writes  (/.  c.,  p.  72,  bottom):  "the  Babylonians  were  also 
apprised  of  the  practice  of  reading  the  Haftarot  exclusively  from  Isaiah"  and 
as  evidence  he  cites  R.  Natronai's  responsum  about  the  Minhah  Haftarot  as 
if  it  referred  to  Palestine!  He  overlooked  the  end  of  the  responsum  which  says 
clearly  that  these  Haftarot  were  abolished  D"D1D  'jza,  viz.  the  Sassanids,  which 
can  only  refer  to  the  Babylonian  custom. 


288  JACOB  MANN 

government  interference  but  by  the  Jewish  spiritual  leaders  in 
Palestine  in  order  to  counteract  the  polemics  on  the  part  of  Jewish 
heretics.  The  elimination  of  the  recital  of  the  Decalogue  daily 
in  the  service  led  to  a  change  in  the  contents  of  the  Tephillin. 
This  symbol  in  its  revised  form  was  a  part  of  the  practice  of 
Judaism,  proscribed  by  Hadrian  in  consequence  of  the  Bar- 
Kokhba  revolt,  and  did  not  regain  for  itself  general  observance 
even  after  the  Hadrianic  edicts  had  been  annulled.  Finally  a 
reminiscence  from  the  Hadrianic  persecution  towards  its  close 
we  have  in  the  change  of  the  time  set  for  "IDIP  nypn  on  New  Year 
with  which  our  discussion  terminates. 

1.  THE  DECALOGUE  IN  THE  LITURGY. 

This  problem  needs  only  brief  mention  here  in  view  of  my 
remarks  elsewhere96  in  connection  to  the  reappearance  of  the 
Decalogue  in  the  daily  service  at  the  Palestinian  synagogue  in 
Fustat  in  the  Muslim  period  continuing  right  down  to  the  13th 
century.  The  Decalogue,  recited  daily  in  the  Temple  by  the 
officiating  priests  prior  to  the  Shema',  was  eliminated  in  Palestine 
from  the  service  of  the  synagogue  some  time  after  the  destruction 
of  the  Temple  (probably  in  the  second  century)  because  of 
heretical  claims  that  only  the  Decalogue  was  Divine  the  rest  of 
the  Pentateuch  consisting  of  later  additions  by  Moses.  How 
such  claims  could  easily  find  acceptance  among  the  people  against 
the  Rabbinic  conception  of  D'O^n  ]Q  min  and  the  Oral  Law  from 
Sinai  is  strikingly  illustrated  by  the  Nash  Papyrus,  being  a 
fragment  of  an  early  liturgy  prevalent  in  Egypt,  wherein  the 
Decalogue  is  followed  by  a  Hebrew  verse,  not  found  in  the  Masso- 
retic  text  but  in  LXX  before  Deut.  6.4  (the  beginning  of  the 
Shema'),  "moa  hx'w  ':a  DN  TWO  rm  nts>«  D'ostPDm  o'pnn  n"?m 
onxo  pNn  on«2C3.  The  elimination  of  the  Decalogue  prevailed 
in  Babylon  where  attempts  in  the  Amoraic  period  to  re-introduce 
it  in  Sura  and  in  Nehardea  failed.  But  in  Egypt  apparently  the 
Decalogue  never  disappeared  from  the  liturgy.  Anyhow  we  find 
it  again  in  use  in  the  Palestinian  synagogue  in  Fustat  throughout 

96  See  Mann,  Jews  in  Egypt  and  -in  Palestine  under  the  Fatimid  Caliphs,  I, 
221-23,  and  especially  H.  U.  C.  Annual,  II,  282-4. 


CHANGES  IN  THE  DIVINE  SERVICE  289 

the  Gaonic  period  right  down  to  the  time  of  Maimonides  and 
beyond  (1211).  Whether  this  was  only  a  local  Minhag  in  Egypt 
or  whether  in  Palestine  too  the  Decalogue  was  re-introduced  in 
the  Muslim  period  cannot  as  yet  be  ascertained. 

2.  TEPHILLIN. 

The  problem  of  the  Decalogue  in  the  liturgy  has  a  bearing 
also  on  the  contents  of  the  Tephillin  in  early  times.  It  is  not 
within  the  scope  of  this  paper  to  discuss  fully  the  origin  of  the 
custom  of  Tephillin.963  Whatever  may  have  been  the  original 
form  of  the  Biblical  niN  and  msaiCD"  it  is  evident  that  in  the  course 
of  the  period  of  the  Second  Commonwealth  the  Tephillin  became 
the  outward  symbol  of  Q'OP  ni3^o  *?iy  n*?3p.  The  very  name  rhan 
used  in  the  Rabbinic  literature  for  the  phylactery  seems  to  be 
connected  with  a  ceremony  at  prayer-time.  The  modern  explana- 
tion of  the  word  from  ^£>n  (=I73£3)  to  attach,  to  affix,  is  not  very 
illuminating  as  a  better  noun  could  have  been  formed  from  the 
roots  T»p  or  ijy  (viz.  nefc  or  rrrj^).'8  But  even  if  this  connotation 


963  Rodkinsohn's  work  nvoh  riVon  (Pressburg  1883),  while  revealing  the 
author's  learning,  basically  suffers  from  lack  of  method  and  historical  judg- 
ment. His  theories  need  not,  therefore,  be  dealt  with  here. 

Schorr's  article  (p^nn,  V,  11  ff.)  is  indeed  full  of  critical  acumen  but 
suffers  from  its  too  polemical  tendency.  While  correctly  realizing  several 
features  in  the  development  of  the  custom,  Schorr  failed  to  obtain  a  clear  view 
of  the  whole  process.  A  radical  fault  of  his  was  not  to  differentiate,  when  dis- 
cussing the  data,  between  the  wearing  of  Tephillin  at  prayer  only,  and  the  whole 
day.  Abraham  Krochmal  (n^un  ]i'jj,  Lemberg  1885,  pp.  24-37),  too,  fails  to 
give  a  clear  picture  of  the  history  of  the  rite  of  Tephillin  though  some  of  his 
remarks  are  well  worth  while.  He  rightly  surmised  (p.  35)  that  there  were 
once  Tephillin  containing  five  Biblical  sections  including  the  Decalogue  but 
failed  properly  to  understand  this  fact. 

Blau's  article  (/.  E.  X,  26  ff  .)  is  of  a  more  informative  nature  than  critical. 
In  setting  forth  my  own  views  it  was  not  found  feasible  to  enter  into  arguments 
on  each  point  with  the  above  authors  but  rather  to  let  the  data  in  their  new 
construction  speak  for  themselves. 

«  Cf.  Hastings'  Dictionary  of  the  Bible,  III,  869  ff.,  and  J.  E.,  X,  26,  28. 

'8  Kohut  in  Aruch  Completum,  s.  v.  DDDD  (vol.  IV,  25-6)  and  ^on  (vol. 
VIII,  258)  and  Jastrow,  s.v.  Cf.  also  the  phraseology  in  Siphre  (ed.  Friedmann, 
p.  74b)  :  'm  mTpa  iV«  omrpi. 


290  JACOB  MANN 

be  granted,  the  expression  n^sn  (Aram.  plur.  J^BTl  to  distinguish 
it  from  rnVsn,  prayers)  was  purposely  chosen  because  the  symbol 
had  been  originally  meant  to  be  used  at  prayer."  With  the  intro- 
duction of  the  Shema'  in  the  daily  service  as  an  essential  part  of 
it,  the  Rabbis  thought  it  proper  to  symbolise  this  declaration  of 
the  Unity  of  God  by  the  Tephillin  finding  a  support  for  this 
symbol  in  the  literal  interpretation  of  the  verses  in  Deut.  6.8, 
11.18  (Ex.  13.9,  16).  The  symbol  was  ordained  primarily  at  the 
daily  morning  service.  The  reason  why  Tephillin  were  not  put 
on  on  Sabbath  morning  was  rather  due  to  the  strictness  of  the 
Sabbath  observance  and  to  the  fear  of  carrying  the  Tephillin  from 
the  home  to  the  synagogue  (n^nn).100  By  analogy  to  the  Sabbath 
the  Tephillin  were  not  put  on  also  at  the  service  on  the  Festivals. 
The  usual  explanation  of  Sabbath  and  Yom  Tob  being  them- 
selves symbols  and  requiring  no  further  DIN  is  later  and  more  of 
an  Aggadic  character.101 

The  primary  connection  of  Tephillin  with  the  morning 
service  in  conjunction  with  recital  of  the  Shema'  is  also  borne  out 
by  the  seemingly  curious  report  of  Jerome  that  the  phylacteries 
contained  the  Ten  Commandments.102  Jerome  does  not  even 

99  So  already  in  ^DD  Vlp,  the  polemical  work  against  which   Judah  Leon 
Modena  wrote  his  nn«  nww  (in  n"?npn  nrm,  ed.  Reggio,  p.  39):  n^nno  'D  aiprmi 
n'onn  Dnsp  3'rm  ,1'Vsn  aitnp  pVi  .inV  n"?sn  nyea  (viz.  pVsnm  cnit*  D'D'co  vn 

.'101  ovn  ^»D  cvzbb  "inv 

100  Cf.  the  cases  of  the  Shofar,  the  Lulab  and  the  Megillah  when  either 
New  Year,  or  the  1st  day  of  Tabernacles  or  Purim  happened  to  fall  on  a  Sab- 
bath (see  R.  H.  29b,  Sukkah  42b-43a,  Meg.  4b:  'n  irvajn  . .  .nu  uVa1  »ov  m'H 

.n^ioi  NDJ;O  ir'm  ,3^i!n  «ayo  u"m  ,vm:i  ITIDK 

101  Cf.  R.  'Akiba's  statement  (Men.  36b):  o'D'ai  ninapa  pVon  DIN  rrr  "?n' 
m«  ]su  ]nv  D'aits  D'DM  mna»  i«x'  ni«  ]on^»  'D  'ui  ~|T  by  niN1?  n»m  :V'n  TDUID. 
This  really  applies  only  to  Sabbath  (Ex.  31.17).    See  also  Mekhilta  of  R.  Simon 
b.  Yohai  (ed.  Hoffmann,  p.  34).    In  the  other  Mekhilta  (Bo.  c.  17)  the  state- 
ment is  ascribed  to  R.  Isaac  which  seems  more  likely. 

102  See  Jerome  to  Mt.  23.6  (in  Migne,  Patrologia  Latina,  vol.  26,  col.  174) 
hoc  Pharisaei  male  interpretantes  (sc.  Dt.  6.8)  scribebant  in  membranulis 
Decalogum  Moysi,  id  est  decem  verba  legis,  complicantes  ea,  et  ligantes  in 
fronte,  et  quasi  coronam  capitis  facientes,  ut  semper  ante  oculos  moverentur. 
Likewise  to  Ezek.  24.15  (ibid,  vol.  25,  col.  230,  top):  Aiunt  Hebraei  hucusque 
Babylonios  magistros,  Legis  praecepta  servantes,  decalogum  scriptum  in  mem- 
branulis circumdare  capiti  suo,  et  haec  esse  quae  jubeantur  ante  oculos  et  in 
fronte  pendere,  ut  semper  videant  quae  praecepta  sunt.    Et  quia  Ezechiel 


CHANGES  IN  THE  DIVINE  SERVICE  291 

mention  the  Shema'  in  the  Tephillin.  But  when  we  consider  that 
originally  the  Decalogue  preceded  the  recital  of  the  Shema'  in  the 
service  having  been  eliminated  some  time  after  the  destruction  of 
the  Temple  (probably  at  the  beginning  of  2nd  century  C.  E.)  in 
order  to  deprive  the  heretics  of  one  of  their  arguments  against 
the  divine  origin  of  the  entire  Torah,  Jerome's  account  becomes 
intelligible.  We  may  safely  assume  that  the  Tephillin  prior  to 
the  elimination  of  the  Decalogue  from  the  daily  morning  service 
really  contained  five  Biblical  sections,  viz.  the  Decalogue,  yw, 
yiDP  as  rrm,  enpand-|«'3'  '3  rrm(Deut.  5.6-18, 6.4-9, 11. 13-21,  Ex. 
13.1-10,  13.11-16).  The  section  from  Exodus  was  cho  en  because 
of  the  mention  of  DIN  and  msoiB  and  at  the  same  time  referring  to 
the  redemption  from  Egypt  it  well  corresponded  to  the  usual  third 
section  of  the  Shema',  viz.  Numbers  15.37-41,  which  likewise 
concludes  with  a  reference  to  D'~ixo  nN'XV3  When,  however,  the 
Decalogue  was  eliminated  from  the  service  it  had  also  to  be 
eliminated  from  the  Tephillin.  Jerome  may  have  seen  such  early 
phylacteries  and  looking  only  at  the  beginning  of  the  strip  of 
parchment  within  he  noticed  first  the  Decalogue.  Had  he  read 
on  he  would  have  found  there  subsequently  the  Shema'  and  the 
other  sections.  It  may  also  be  that  the  Tephillin  Jerome  saw 
belonged  to  a  heretic  who  disobeyed  the  ruling  of  the  Rabbis.104 
The  Mishnah  (Sanh.  11.3)  clearly  reflects  the  time  when  the 
Tephillin  included  the  Decalogue  and  hence  had  five  sections  in 
stating:  Toy1?  H3  i?t?sn  TK  nown  .mm  '-DID  DHDID  n:m  nain 
3"n  D'-ISND  nm  hy  ^orb  memta  n8»n  .-mafl  mm  nm  by.  Now 
what  could  these  five  Totafot  (viz.  five  compartments  of  the 
phylactery  on  the  head)  contain  if  not  the  Decalogue  that  pre- 

sacerdos  erat,  nequaquam  eum  debere  deponere  coronam  gloriationis,  sed 
ligatam  habere  in  capita.  Hoc  illi  dixerint.  The  interpretation  of  "INS  as 
Tephillin  is  reported  in  the  name  of  Rab  (Sukkah  25b,  cf.  Ber.  16b,  top). 

103  The  order  of  the  Biblical  portions  in  the  Tephillin,  given  in  Men.  34b, 
refers  already  to  the  time  after  the  elimination  of  the  Decalogue.  See  infra, 
note  106,  about  the  position  of  the  Shema'  section. 

I0«  Cf.  M.  Megillah  4.8  about  the  different  way  of  putting  on  Tephillin  used 
by  the  Minim.  Cf.  also  Blau,  /.  £.,  X,  27,  col.  2,  who  thinks  that  Jerome  was 
incorrect  in  this  account.  But  our  explanation  solves  the  whole  difficulty. 
Nor  is  the  Nash  Papyrus  with  the  Decalogue  before  the  Shema'  heretical  as 
Blau  seems  to  think  (sec  above  p.  . 


292  JACOB  MANN 

ceded  the  Shema'?  The  phraseology  of  the  Mishnah  makes  the 
Tephillin  containing  four  Biblical  sections  already  Sopheric  but 
the  change  only  took  place  after  the  destruction  of  the  Temple 
long  after  the  so-called  period  of  the  Sopherim.105 

One  can  even  venture  to  suggest  that  the  outward  indication 
of  the  letter  Shin  on  the  head  phylactery  was  ordained  after  this 
change  to  proclaim  to  all  that  the  Tephillin  began  with  Shema' 
(there  being  no  room  enough  on  the  D'3  to  write  the  word  ynv  in 
full,  hence  only  letter  P  was  enough  for  the  indication).  Iosa  There- 
fore the  letter  appears  on  one  side  of  the  capsule  containing  the 
Biblical  sections  in  the  usual  form  (ff=yD2>)  and  on  the  other 
side  with  four  tittles  on  the  top  (w)  indicating  that  there  were 
only  four  sections  inside!106  Later  on  the  Shin  on  the  head 

105  Interesting    is   the    discussion   in   Siphre    (ed.    Friedmann,    p.    74b), 
which  reflects  the  earlier  time  when  the  Tephillin  contained  the  Decalogue: 

,m'rp3,  on  nn  nnnt«  nixo  moTpp  i«u'  '3  rvm  '"?  enp  nm  :IDIK  '3M  ]"iyi 


'131  noim  p  man  Tnvppa  irrit>  ]H  U»K  nnrm  nixo  OIDTP  *v  nrrnn  m»y 
Cf.  also  par.  34  (p.  74a)  which  also  reflects  the  elimination  of  the  Decalogue 
from  the  daily  recital  prior  to  the  Shema'  o:'N  nnriN  nixo  monp  vbv  /main  "• 


iosa  For  a  similar  abbreviation  cf.  R.  Judah's  statement  (Yer.  Meg.  7  la, 
1.  20):  v~n  <]"rn=)  vn  ania  'iPn  TIN.  Cf.  the  different  version  in  Meg.  Ta'anit, 
end  in  Neub.,  Med.  Jew.  Laron.,  II,  23).  See  also  M.  M.  Sheni  4.11. 

106  This  double  form  of  Shin  on  the  head  phylactery  is  prescribed  in  the 
Gaonic  work  Nan  xviav  (cited  in  Tos.  to  Men.  35a  s.v.  ]'VanV0  )'»)  :  ]'n  mi* 
na  ]h  rr^  i'B«  'Ri  ,'rn  "\  «V«D»ii  «»n  '3  won.  This  was  an  old  tradition  no 
longer  understood.  The  ending  permitting  a  reversal  was  due  to  the  later 
shifting  of  the  order  of  the  Biblical  sections  (see  end  of  this  note).  Originally, 
after  the  elimination  of  the  Decalogue,  the  Shema'  was  purposely  put  on  the 
right  side  of  the  capsule,  outside  of  which  was  the  letter  v=yov. 

The  arrangement  of  the  Biblical  sections  in  the  Tephillin  underwent 
changes  and  was  by  far  not  fixed  uniformly,  as  is  evident  from  Men.  34b; 
ND»D  jnnr  on  rrm  yov  ,]'D'D  -|to3'  '3  rvm  'V  mp  ipio  ix'3  :Yn 
tnipm  ,rv»  b>0  iro'D  |«3  ,«nip  hv  iro'D  ]«3  ,«'pp  «"?  :"3«  no«. 
The  second  version  of  the  Baraita  was  evidently  the  original  form.  Formerly 
there  was  included  the  Decalogue  too  as  in  the  daily  service.  After  its  elimina- 
tion there  remained  4  sections  beginning  with  Shema'  which  took  its  place  on 
the  right  side  of  the  capsule  where  outwardly  there  was  (and  still  is)  the  letter 
p=yot.  Then  followed  '*?  enp  ,y\ov  DK  n'ni  and  iK'3'  '3  rrm,  the  last  being 
placed  on  the  left  side  of  the  capsule  outside  of  which  we  have  the  letter  Shin 
in  the  form  K>  to  indicate  that  there  were  only  4  sections.  But  the  desire  to  have 
the  sections  in  the  order  of  their  occurence  in  the  Pentateuch  resulted  in  a  re- 


CHANGES  IN  THE  DIVINE  SERVICE  293 

phylactery  was  regarded  as  a  law  to  Moses  from  Sinai  (]'» 
TOO  nti'D1?  ro^n  pVfifDV)  because  its  real  purpose  was  no  longer 
known.107  The  still  later  explanation  of  Shin  as  forming  the  word 
HP  together  with  the  knots  of  the  head  phylactery  in  the  form  of 
1  and  of  the  hand  phylactery  in  the  form  of  TT  need  not  detain 
us  long.108  Beside  its  late  origin  it  overlooks  the  fact  that  the 
hand  phylactery  was  worn  covered  and  that  even  the  knot  of  the 
phylactery  on  the  head  was  not  always  visible  whereas  symbols 
are  essentially  instituted  for  outward  appearance  manifest  to  all. 
All  this  only  shows  how  successfully  the  Rabbis  succeeded  in 
removing  the  traces  of  the  earlier  Tephillin  containing  five 
Biblical  sections  so  that  the  Tephillin  in  their  new  form  became  to 

shifting  of  the  sections.  Even  after  this  reshifting  the  section  Shema'  still 
remained  on  the  right  side  of  the  capsule  (where  Shin  is  marked  on  the  out- 
side)  in  many  Tephillin  and  should  be  so  according  to  R.  Tarn,  who  is  sup- 
ported  by  Gajronic  evidence  (seeTos.,  ibid,  s.v.  tmprn:  *?g  j'O'D  rvm  pnp  n"i 
(viz.  on  left  side  of  the  capsule)  nnn«i  finao  yo»  'in  tnip  "?»  ^NDPOI 
'iai  D'aao  yinp  DN  rvm.)  Cf.  also  Maimonides  instructive  responsum  on  the 
subject  (o'amn  mawn  paip,  I,  No.  26,  and  in  nivo  »]D3  to  r^en  'n  ,min  nwo, 
3.5),  where  the  reference  to  another  Moses  b.  Maimon,  of  Cordova,  who  had 
composed  a  work  on  Tephillin,  is  rather  suspicious. 

J°7  Men.  35a:  'roo  nvob  na^n  ]'^DD  hv  ]*v  "an  IDNI.  Babya  b.  Asher 
(nopn  la,  Lemberg,  1872,  116a)  quotes  similar  statements  of  Abbaye  with 
regard  to  'n  *?v  n'bt  and  'n  bv  TV  but  this  reading  is  unwarranted  (see  note 
108,  end). 

108  Cf.  the  legendary  account  of  the  heated  discussion  between  Moses 
(sic!)  and  R.  Tarn  about  the  knot  in  the  shape  of  iv  on  the  hand  phylactery 
(given  by  Gedalya  ibn  Yabya,  n*?3pn  rbvhv,  ed.  Lemberg,  1864,  69a,  b,  cf.  the 
MS.  version  given  by  Kaufmann,  REJ.,  V.  274-5)  which  shows  that  the  whole 
combination  of  the  three  letters  n»  is  very  late,  bv  m'PpnP  . .  .ir:n  nvo  b  no« 
,'i»  DP  D'^»n^  om3D3  nniN  i:pn  o'D^n  p«  .n'moi?  K^I  c^iy^>  T'ix  K^  Tra  T 
'vr\  ay  nsnixo  nj'«p  nn«o  -\3  D'n'ixi?  noi1?  IJJD'  «"?»  »Nna  nmry1?  IXT  K1?  1 
'n. 

Even  with  regard  toewnp  I'^Dnaw  ~\vp  though  it  was  regarded  as  nro^  n 
'roo  (see  Men.  35b),  it  is  nowhere  indicated  in  the  Talmud  that  it  had  the  shape 
of  n^n.  Only  later  on  the  passage  in  the  Talmud  (ibid.) :  'n  DP  '0  pun  'oy  "?o  itoi 
Ptonp  ]'^Dn  I"?K  IDIK  ^nan  K'T  w:n  .'IDI  T^y  Hip:,  suggested  the  combination  of 
a  Divine  name,  viz.  HP.  So  Rashi:  n^li  J'P  OPH  an  ia  ainap  . .  .'n  DP  (cf.  also 
s.v.  npp)  but  Tosafot  rightly  objects  to  this:  nvniK  i«"?  niyixiap  Tvi  r\">*?-n  n«nji 
I'^sn  "?P  npp  D«  'a  in^»  rip  N^>  snan  oipai . .  .HP  bv  DPH  ]o  'a'pn  «"?i  ]n  nmoi. 
A  still  later  explanation  of  letter  p  as  being  nrap^  ton  is  given  by  Babya  b. 
Asher (nopn  la,  115b,  116a). 


294  JACOB  MANN 

be  regarded  as  being  of  hoary  antiquity  and  the  outward  indica- 
tion such  as  Shin  became  a  matter  of  guessing.  All  this  was  due 
to  their  struggle  against  the  Minim  and  to  their  desire  to  obliter- 
ate as  much  as  possible  the  details  of  this  strife  in  order  not  to 
arouse  new  controversies. 

The  symbol  of  Tephillin  just  as  that  of  Sisit  was  employed 
by  the  Pharisees  as  a  means  in  their  endeavor  to  intensify  the 
Jewish  religious  life  and  make  it  pervade  everyday  activities. 
The  Rabbis  and  their  disciples  began  to  wear  Tephillin  the  whole 
day,  even  after  the  divine  service,  in  order  to  symbolize  their 
constant  awareness  of  "the  yoke  of  the  kingdom  of  heaven"  for 
the  acceptance  of  which  the  Shema'  was  the  official  declaration. 
Of  this  custom  first  mention  is  made  in  Talmudic  reports  referring 
to  the  1st  century,  C.  E.  It  combined  both  a  religious  as  well  as 
a  sort  of  political  demonstration  inasmuch  as  the  spiritual  ITO^D 
D'DP  was  still  staunchly  hoped  for  by  Israel  though  de  facto 
Palestine  was  under  the  mundane,  wicked  rule  of  Rome  (see  also 
above,  p.  246).  Whereas  the  Tephillin  of  the  Hasid  in  the  time  of 
Simon  b.  Shetah  (Yer.  Hag.  77d)  probably  were  those  used  only 
at  prayer  and  likewise  those  of  Shammai,  which  he  had  from  his 
maternal  grandfather,109  we  hear  of  R.  Yohanan  b.  Zakkai  that 
he  constantly  wore  the  Tephillin  both  in  winter  and  in  summer 
and  that  his  disciple  R.  Eliezer  b.  Hyrcanos  followed  suit.110  The 
whole  account  shows  that  this  was  regarded  as  an  act  of  extreme 
piety,  especially  in  the  summer  when  the  heat  made  the  wearing 
of  Tephillin  the  whole  day  very  uncomfortable.111  Needless  to 
say  ordinary  people,  who  had  to  labor  either  in  the  field,  the 

109  Mekh.  Bo.,  c.  17,  end,  Mekh.  of  Simon  b.  Yohai  (ed.  Hoffmann,  p.  35, 
top).     In  Yer.  Erubin  26a  this  is  reported  in  the  name  of  Hillel  and  not  of 
Shammai. 

110  Yer.  Ber.  4c,  1.10;  N1?!  N0"p3  N1?  rrro  TJ?T  'i^'sn  rmn  vb  '«ar  p  ]W  p"i 
VIHK  n'oVn  iry'^K  "\  an:  -pi  .Kirvoa.    R.  Eliezer  b.  Hyrcanos  wore  his  Tephillin 
even  on  his  death  bed  (see  the  story  in  Yer.  Sabb.  5b,  bottom,  Babli  Sanh.  68a, 
Ab.  de  R.  Natan,  c.  25).     Joshu'a  b.  Hananya,  another  famous  disciple  of  R. 
Yohanan  b.  Zakkai,  also  seems  to  have  worn  the  Tephillin  constantly  as  is 
evident  from  the  Sabb.  127b. 

111  Hence  R.  Yohanan  b.  Nappaba  would  wear  the  head  phylactery  the 
whole  day  only  in  winter,  ibid.,  1.  11:  P'31?  'in  mz>n  prn  mm  Nirroa  jam*  "i 

?N  tfu1?  mn  «"?  rr»H  pvn  mn  N1?!  «a"pa  D-D  ,prrnn. 


CHANGES  IN  THE  DIVINE  SERVICE  295 

workshop  or  in  the  market  place,  could  not  follow  this  Pharisaic 
example  of  piety.  In  this  respect  Dr.  Biichler  (Galil.  'Am-Haares 
p.  23,  note  1)  is  right  in  emphasizing  that  only  some  scholars 
would  practice  this  extreme  symbolism  of  Q'OP  mD*?D  Viy  rbip.  It 
was  also  regarded  as  a  sign  of  piety  to  enlarge  the  phylacteries  in 
size  in  spite  of  the  discomfort  of  their  heaviness  in  wearing  them 
and  hence  the  Pharisees  are  accused  of  doing  this  only  to  show  off 
before  people  (Matthew  23.5),  though  it  is  not  certain  whether 
this  refers  to  the  phylacteries  worn  only  at  prayer  or  whether  also 
during  the  whole  day.  The  wearing  of  Tephillin  the  whole  day 
as  an  act  of  piety  naturally  gave  rise  to  abuses  by  hypocrites  as  is 
evident  from  the  story  in  Yer.  Ber.  4c  top.1"  A  foolish  Hasid 
(ruw  Ton)  is  illustrated  by  the  example  of  his  passing  by  a  river 
and  seeing  a  child  drowning  but  delaying  to  go  to  its  rescue  till  he 
takes  off  his  Tephillin  (in  order  not  to  desecrate  them)  while  in 
the  meanwhile  the  child  is  perishing."3 

How  far  the  common  people  practiced  the  custom  of  Tephil- 
lin even  at  prayer  is  difficult  to  ascertain.  R.  Meir  is  reported  to 
say  that  "there  is  no  man  in  Israel,  who  is  not  surrounded  by 
Misvot,  viz.  Tefillin  on  his  head  and  arm  and  other  symbols 
(Tos.  Ber.  7.25:  i2>N-n  j'Vsn  ,ITOK  ms'po  mxo  ]'«»  ^KTZPD  DTK  i*7  r« 
inis  ms'pB  nvx'x  nyrnsi  innsa  nnrai  ,ijmn  I'^sni,  cf.  also  Yer. 
Ber.  14d).  Probably  R.  Meir  meant  here  that  at  least  some 
of  these  Misvot  were  kept  by  every  Jew  and  should  not  be  taken 
to  reflect  his  actual  experience  of  conditions  in  Palestine  either 
before  or  after  the  Hadrianic  persecutions.  Moreover,  this  state- 
ment appears  anonymously  in  quite  a  different  form  in  Men. 
43b."4  Laborers  in  the  field,  or  even  in  the  homes  of  their 

112  N^N  mon  -|V  N^  :V"n  ,rva  HSDI  man  *ai  Tpstn  n  na  tna  mn  Kiaiy 
mnn  -|»nan  ]'V'«^.      Cf.  especially  Pes.   R.  c.   22   (ed.   Friedmann,   lllb): 
ni-ray  naiyi  i^ini  «|my  -|rvVm  KBI:  i^sn  Knn  t^tf. 

113  Yer.  So^ah,  19a,  1.14  ff :     ,in:a  yayao   pirn   n«T  ?now    Ton    inr   'K 
iroj  nx  nr  n»xin  .v^'sn  y^in  KIHPJ  oy   .i]^'s«  ,»^'Bn  yi^nKPD1?  :noK. 

"*  Joshu'a  b.  Hananya  characterises  the  'Am-Ha-ares  as  not  putting  on 
Tephillin  (viz.  even  at  prayer),  Ber.  46b,  but  in  So^ah  22a  this  statement  is 
anonymous  in  reply  to  R.  Meir,  who  had  a  more  lenient  view  that  the  'Am-Ha- 
ares be  only  stigmatised  as  such,  if  he  does  not  recite  the  Shema'.  This  would 
show  that  R.  Meir  was  fully  aware  of  the  fact  that  the  laborers  could  not  prac- 


296  JACOB  MANN 

employers,  early  in  the  morning  evidently  recited  the  Shema'  and 
the  Tefillah  without  putting  on  Tephillin  (see  Ber.  16a  where 
Tephillin  are  not  mentioned  at  all).  Whatever  may  have  been 
the  extent  of  the  prevalence  of  Tephillin  before  the  Hadrianic 
persecutions,  the  prohibition  of  Judaism  in  the  years  135-138  (or 
thereabouts)  made  the  wearing  of  the  Tephillin  especially  danger- 
ous because  of  their  conspicuousness  and  tended  to  bring  about 
laxity  in  the  practice  even  after  the  removal  of  Hadrian's  edicts 
by  Antoninus  Pius.  The  danger  of  Tephillin  during  this  time  of 
persecution  is  alluded  to  in  M.  'Erubin  10.1  ("iWn  ]D3D  ru555i) 
and  in  Sabb.  49a  (also  130a)  in  connection  with  the  story  of 
Elisha  D'DJD  7^3. IIS  Informers  (a  la  After)  probably  pointed  out 
to  the  government  that  the  Tephillin,  like  the  Shema'  contained 
therein,  had  a  special  signifiance  as  a  symbol  of  rroVo  "ny  nVap 
Q'Ot?  as  against  the  rule  of  Rome."6  On  account  of  the  obvious 
danger  people  stopped  putting  on  Tephillin  even  at  prayer  not  to 
speak  of  wearing  them  in  the  streets.  Only  a  saint  like  Elisha 
Q'-ttD  "?j7a  would  expose  himself  to  the  danger.  The  discontinu- 
ance of  the  custom  led  to  laxity  even  after  Hadrian's  time  as  is 
characteristically  admitted  by  R.  Simon  b.  El'azar,  a  disciple  of  R. 
Meir  (Sabb.  130a)."7  On  the  other  hand  the  scholarly  refugees 
from  Palestine,  who  had  sought  safety  in  Babylon  from  Roman 

tice  this  custom  even  at  prayer.  However,  R.  Meir's  statement  in  Sotah  is 
reported  in  Ber.  in  the  name  of  Eli'ezer  b.  Hyrcanos. 

115  Schorr  (fiVnn,  V,  15)  rightly  suggests  that  D'D»  Vya  really  meant  a 
member  of  the  Haberim,  who  observed  Levitical  purity  (cf.  Bekhorot  30b; 
nrmt^  I'^apo  3'rmi  D'DuV  I'^po),  though  his  identification   with  the   Es- 
senes  is  not  warranted.    The  explanation  of  the  name  in  connection  with  the 
miracle  of  the  Tephillin  in  Sabb.  49a  is  of  course  legendary  but  the  prohibition 
of  wearing  Tephillin  during  the  Hadrianic  persecution  reported  there  is  quite 
historical. 

116  Complete  acceptance  of  this  obligation  (in  the  words  of  R.  Yohanan, 
Ber.  14b,  bottom)  consisted  of  Tephillin,  Shema'  and  'Amidah,  ^>3p'P  nxnn 
ro!?D  KYI  in  .^flrm  v'p  tnp'1  j'^sn  rvri  TT  ^its'i  n«r  .no^v  O*DV  DID'JO  ^iy  v^y 
noVe>  O'DP.     Though  R.  Yohanan  lived  long  after  the  Bar  Kokhba  period, 
he  no  doubt  reflects  in  this  respect  the  sentiment  maintained  by  the  leading 
Rabbis  centuries  before. 

"'  mri  ny»a  nn'D1?  an^y  ]oxy  Vtntf'  non»  mxo  "73  :noiN  niy^K  p  P'T 
VDI  ,aT3  npiniQ  KYI  ]"iy  .n'roi  ry  jus  (see  D'I,  a.  1.,  better  lorn  nj)BQ> 
.DT3  nsno  «'n  "iy  ,'^'Bn  «D  n^ 


CHANGES  IN  THE  DIVINE  SERVICE  297 

persecution,  were  especially  zealous  in  spreading  the  custom  in 
Babylon,  as  is  reported  by  Sherira  Gaon  (see  infra,  note  122). 
But  there  too  only  some  scholars  would  wear  Tephillin  the  whole 
day  (like  Rab  and  others.)"8  This  continued  later  on  to  be  the 
custom  of  the  Geonim  and  the  members  of  the  academies."9  But 
how  far  the  ordinary  people  in  Babylon  made  use  of  the  symbol  of 
Tephillin  even  at  prayer  is  not  evident.120  Yet  no  doubt  the  insis- 
tence of  the  Rabbis  gradually  exerted  its  influence  to  make 
Tephillin  the  regular  feature  for  all  daily  worhshippers  in  the 
synagogues. 

To  sum  up  our  discussion,  the  symbolism  of  Tephillin  was 
meant  primarily  to  emphasize  the  acceptance  of  "The  yoke  of  the 
kingdom  of  heaven."  Originally  connected  with  the  recital  of  the 
Decalogue  and  the  Shema'  in  the  morning,  the  symbol  was  extended 
to  the  whole  day  by  the  Pharisees  in  their  endeavor  to  make  the 
consciousness  of  their  religious  ideal  the  guide  of  their  whole 
daily  life.  This  extension  was  only  meant  for  the  scholarly  class 
but  it  had  its  reaction  in  the  ordinary  people  being  lax  in  using  the 
symbol  of  Tephillin  even  at  prayer  because  the  wearing  of  Tephil- 
lin the  whole  day  became  to  be  regarded  as  an  act  of  extreme 
piety.  The  Hadrianic  persecutions  had  their  share  too  in  weaken- 
ing the  practice  of  the  symbol.  The  Rabbis,  especially  in  the  3rd 
century  C.  E.,  would  endeavor  to  emphasize  the  importance  of  the 
symbol,  some  of  them  even  resorting  to  the  mystical  fancy  of  God 
too  wearing  Tephillin  (see  Men.  35b  and  Ber.  6a).  Their  chief 
aim  was  to  establish  firmly  this  custom  at  prayer  (see  Ber.  14b, 
bottom,  and  15a,  top).  On  the  other  hand  the  wearing  of  Tephil- 
lin the  whole  day  by  all  and  sundry  was  not  encouraged.  It  gave 

118  Among  the  ten  points  of  extreme  piety  attributed  to  Rab  ('^'D  ~\vy 
Knn'om)  the  9th  was:  virw  nvv  i-\  jrm  1'^sro  Tin  ?TI  rrnp  (n'v,  No.  178). 
The  passage  hints  that  the  other  disciples  did  not  follow  him  in  this  practice. 

"»  Cf.  Gaonic  Responsa  )'n,  No.  84,  n'0,  No.  153  (in  responsum  of  Sar 
Shalom) i1?'},  No.  3;  Ytn,  I,  36  top,  46. 

"°  Rab  characterises  a  sinner  as  one  who  fails  to  put  on  Tephillin  (R.  H. 
17a:  I'^on  mo  vhi  «nopnp  :m  no«  Tim  'NO  .]BU3  ^sotf'  'JJBMD).  But  other 
readings  have  Simon  b.  Lakish  instead  of  Rab. 


298  JACOB  MANN 

cause  to  abuses  by  hypocrites.  Hence  R.  Yannai  (1st  half  of  3rd 
century)  came  out  with  the  statement  that  'pJ  TQ  pnx  j'^Dn."1 
He,  no  doubt,  meant  by  it  the  wearing  of  them  the  whole  day. 
But  it  was  interpreted  by  several  people  in  Gaonic  times  to  refer 
even  to  Tephillin  at  prayer  and  it  thus  led  to  a  general  laxity  of 
practice.  The  Geonim,  when  asked  about  their  opinion,  were 
eager  to  combat  this  tendency.  Instead  of  clearly  stating  that  R. 
Yannai  referred  only  to  wearing  Tephillin  the  whole  day,  they 
explained  away  his  statement  to  deal  only  with  the  time  of  perse- 
cution. They  were  misled  by  the  gloss  D'sw  hyz  jw^fco  in  Sabb. 
49a  (see  note  121)  to  construe  the  whole  statement  of  R.  Yannai 
as  dealing  with  the  time  of  the  Hadrianic  persecution.122  The 
obscurity  prevailing  about  the  meaning  of  R.  Yannai's  statement 
contributed  greatly  to  the  general  laxity  of  wearing  Tephillin 
even  at  prayer  especially  in  Western  Europe,  viz.  in  France  and 
Spain.  As  late  as  1235  R.  Moses  of  Coucy  during  his  travels  in 
the  Provence  and  in  northern  Spain  had  to  bestir  himself  to 
impress  in  his  sermons  his  audiences  with  the  duty  of  Tephillin  at 
prayer.123  This  is  the  case  with  many  a  rite  that  in  course  of  time 

121  Yer.  Ber.  4c,  1.6:   ?|na  ip'tnn  N"?  no  'JBD  ,'pj  «pj  jonx  J^BD  :'«r  'an  nn« 
"IDI  I'NOin  'JBD.    It  is  doubtful  whether  from   'JBD  is  also  by  R.  Yannai.    In 
Babli  (Sabb.  49a,  130a)  R.  Yannai  is  supposed  to  illustrate  his  remark  by  the 
example  of  Elishah  D'Bja  ^ya  but  in  reality  it  seems  a  later  insertion. 

122  See  the  responsum  attributed  to  R.  Yehudai  (fl'n,  No.  62;  n'v,  No.  153 
V0n,  I,  45):  ''D  -p  ,D'B:D  Vya  yp'^io  'p:  «pi  manx  ]'^'sn  :noi^  DTK  to  OKI 
iDtpn  nypa  D'liDN  nnm  noa  :D'Dan.    Still  more  instructive  is  Sherira's  respon- 
sum (^'naiP,  ed.  Buber,  p.  382,  cf.  'Itfur,  ed.  Lemberg,  II,  26d,  where  it  is 
ascribed  to  his  son,  Hai,  the  responsum  probably  emanating  from  father  and 
son  combined):  'y»is  :wpb  p  pyDP  "\ 

tKD^yi  Nan  ina  '!?rVrD  xoya  '«D  «n'«m  . 
(In  '/f/Mr  the  reading  is  «nVyi  jjan  which  would  then  refer  to  wearing  them  the 
whole  day).  ny»a  K'nn  D'j:0ton  D'JINJH  naa  WTS  ,D'su  "?ya  yts'^Ni  own  '« 
Tl'iy  mxD[ni  «ovp  KD^H  i«  Ninva  vmo  »D  ,1'V'sn  j'n'iD  DH»D^nn»  mnipo  »'i  .mran 
(Here  again  it  would  seem  that  the  point  concerns  the  wearing  of  them  the 
whole  day). 

Sherira's  reply  was:  (better  mrj  '»'sn  ]V3  D'r,»«in  niD'D  '"Nai  ,«rm  ]'an 
1'p'r'D  nanrw  |^on  (better  'nu«V)  'nin«^  i^'a'  x1?!  in  '/#«r:  NID»  »'sn), 
mtpnia  'a»v  nnvai  ]ina  D'Tnton  (better  in  '/#«r:  *7aaa  ]in3D>  Vaaa. 

"3  About  France  see  Tosafot  to  Sabb.  49a,  s.v.  y»^«a:  "?y  nn'n  ]'«i 
n'lfli  nn'n  c'oan  'D'a  DJB>  irTa  n'lsi  nsr  mxo»  no.  R.  Moses  of  Coucy  in 
J'DD,  ]'2>y,  par.  3,  gives  us  fuller  information  about  the  laxity  of  observance: 


CHANGES  IN  THE  DIVINE  SERVICE  299 

lose  their  original  symbolic  significance  and  are  practiced  only  by 
force  of  tradition.  But  even  to  rites  the  proverb  ^03  'i^n  "?DH 
can  be  applied.  Some  of  them  captured  the  imagination  of  the 
people  and  were  scrupulously  observed.  Others,  like  Tephillin, 
had  to  go  through  a  long  time  of  neglect  till  they  found  a  semb- 
lance of  general  observance. 

3.  THE  TIME  OF  BLOWING  THE  SHOFAR  ON  NEW  YEAR. 

The  most  significant  feature  of  the  New  Year  celebration 
was  the  blowing  of  the  ram's  horn  (Shofar).  It  should  have 
therefore  introduced  the  divine  service  of  the  day  and  yet  it  is 
connected  not  with  Shaharit  service  but  with  the  Musaph.  This 
change  of  time  is  traced  back  to  the  Hadrianic  persecutions.  Thus 
R.  Yohanan  explains  the  direction  of  the  Mishnah  (R.  H.  32b)  for 
the  reader  of  Musaph  to  initiate  the  sounding  of  the  Shofar  as  due 
to  an  occasion  at  "the  time  of  perseuction."124  Rashi's  explanation 
that  government  officials  would  wait  in  the  synagogues  till  the 
completion  of  Shaharit  about  midday  in  order  to  enforce  the  pro- 
hibition of  "isitP  njrpn,  whereupon  after  their  departure  the  Shofar 
was  clandestinely  sounded  at  Musaph,125  is  hardly  to  the  point 


nut  my  .  .  .nimm  I'sm  3"n  nn«i  in«  ?3V  rrsm    ?*-\v>  nvn  ir  r\v~\s  viem 
:iox3  ]'^'£>n  np'jn  ,p'ix  OIKD  y^an  nwv  yv~\  m«3  n'apn  pen  inr  '3  on^  » 
HUTS  i^uy  nniKD  pirm  12?  ]»anx  on  inn  ,miD  -\~\i  onr'^i  o'yp-)^  jnar 
'DPn  p  na'D  nn'n  D^IJ;  nNna^  aw  n'xpnm  K'n  inn  'nn  .  .  .on'D'  ^3 
Dmn'n  nim^na  'niyn?  n'apn  ^DKI  ,Dnoin^  msoa  'n«n  (izau)  Trpnn 
nmem  itpyi  c'n^K  mnn^  'nm  jnun  mm  non  '^y  D'i  .o'SJian  mjvrm 
ji  -JD  inn  'n"n  mxi«  n«»3  ]3i  ,n'*'xi  mnro 
Cp.  also  nopn  ID  (115b):   j'T 

^snnr  ]'3»in»  ':DD  |nmna 

...ypno  '»n  n'n 

nypn  .nixo1?  I'a'ipo  ]'inn  oiro  (viz. 


nirj  ny»3  :]inv  »an  ID«  tnixo^.  For  nia^on  mt),  a  phrase  due  to  the 
censor,  all  Talmudic  MSS.  as  well  as  other  authorities  have  lorn  nyp  (see  o'l, 
a.l.)  which  in  the  Talmud  mostly  means  the  Hadrianic  persecution. 

The  Hif'il  ypno  indicates  that  the  reader  gave  the  direction  for  the  sound- 
ing (by  announcing  nypn,  etc.)  to  the  ypin  ^ya.  Had  he  himself  blown  the 
Shofar,  the  Kal  ypin  would  have  been  used. 

"«  Rashi  (ibid.,  s.v.  nyra):  vv  ^3  on1?  vaiiN  vm  ,iypn»  tbv  nn  D'SMK 
|'BOiD3  yipn^  mvayn  -jo1?  ,nnn»  n^»Dn  yp1?  myp.  The  same  explanation  is 
repeated  in  Vitry,  p.  385  (cf.  p.  352  in  responsum  of  Joseph  Bonfils),  Or 


300  JACOB  MANN 

because  during  the  Hadrianic  persecutions  the  whole  Synagogal 
service  was  proscribed.  Moreover,  the  authorities  would  no 
doubt  be  attracted  by  the  sound  of  the  Shofar.  Rashi  had  in 
mind  the  details  in  connection  with  the  prohibition  of  the  Shema' 
by  the  Byzantines  (above,  p.  259)  when  the  rest  of  the  Synagogal 
service  was  more  or  less  permitted.  Of  course,  during  the 
Hadrianic  persecution  there  were  cases  of  clandestine  fulfilling  of 
~IS1P  njrpn  by  injecting  the  sound  into  a  pit  or  a  vat  as  is  evident 
from  the  Mishnah  (ibid.  27b,  top)"6  But  open  services  were 
altogether  prohibited  and  there  could  be  no  alternative  of  nypn 
isw  at  Musaph  instead  of  at  Shafrarit. 

With  the  help  of  the  parallel  passage  in  Yer.  R.  H.  (59c,  11.48 
ff.)"7  we  can  understand  R.  Yoljanan's  statement  better.  It  was 
evidently  towards  the  end  of  the  persecution  (known  as  ^sbw 
no^n),"8  after  Hadrian's  death  (138  C.  E.)  and  at  the  beginning 
of  Antonius  Pius'  reign,  when  the  rigor  of  the  persecution  was 
relaxed  and  the  local  Roman  authorities  would  allow  the  Jews  in 
certain  pacified  districts  to  resume  their  religious  practices  while 
in  other  places,  still  under  suspicion  of  harboring  some  turbulent 
elements  of  the  population,  watchfulness  was  still  maintained. 
It  would  occur  that  the  sounding  of  the  Shofar  caused  excitement 
among  the  Roman  garrison  as  a  revolutionary  signal  especially 
when  a  multitude  was  assembled  in  one  place,  albeit  in  a  house 
of  worship.129  This  time  of  unequal  conditions  prevailing  in  Pal- 
estine at  the  end  of  the  persecutions  seems  to  be  reflected  in  the 

Zarua,  II,  par.  264,  h'mv,  ed.  Buber  fol.  143  a.b.,  Tanya,  ed.  Hurwitz,  p.  160. 
Only  R.  Hananel  rightly  quotes  Yer.  for  the  proper  explanation. 

126  hip  DNI  ,NI»'  yDP  1D10  "?ip  DN  .DB'fln  iin1?  IN  min  -pn1?  IN  inn  -pnV  ypinn 
NX'  vb  J?DP  man.  Hai  Gaon  (cited  in  v'v,  I,  35,  bottom)  rightly  explains  this 
passage:  one*  (read  mo"?Dn  nnm)  nvD^om  nnrn  'D'a  an1?  panic  vn  i^n  anai 
'i^:a  yipnl?D  ana  D'NTno- 

"'  rmPNin  iypn  nnN  ays  .jnnw  nvyo  ':BD  :|jnr  un  DPS  NHN  13  spy  'an 
pV  'on  jirNi  u'D  .mrini  ]n'hy  nojn  I'D^in  on  in'"?y  NDB>  fnao  D'N3i»n  rm 
1'p'oy  ]irN  I'DiD'u  |'iDN  ]]'N  ,1'ypim  ""72:01  Nn'mNa  j'Nnipi  P'^XDI  ynv  iNnp. 
About  the  variants  see  Ratner  (D'VpiTi  )ViC  run«,  to  R.  H.,  pp.  47-48). 
Several  authorities  (like  Isaac  ibn  Gayyat  in  v'v  and  others)  seem  to  have  had 
in  Yer.  the  following  ending,  noipoD  nrr  N"?  rupnn  noipn  huiv  B'yNi. 

128  Cf.  the  meeting  at  Usha  which  took  place  IDBTI  'sWa  (Cant.  R.  2.5). 

"»  Cf.  Amos  3.6:  mrr  N"?  nyi  ,Tj?a  ~\BW  ypn'  DN? 


CHANGES  IN  THE  DIVINE  SERVICE  301 

Baraita  (Yer.  R.  H.,  59d  top)  stating  that  in  one  place  the  actual 
sounding  of  Shofar  would  take  place  while  in  another  only  a  bene- 
diction over  the  Shofar  would  be  recited.130  One  such  an  occa- 
sion, when  the  sudden  sounding  of  the  Shofar  on  New  Year  caused 
a  panic  in  the  Roman  camp  at  a  certain  place  in  Palestine  and 
resulted  in  an  attack  on  the  Jews  assembled  for  worship,  is  re- 
ported by  R.  Yohanan.  Hence,  to  assure  the  Roman  authorities, 
the  Jews  would  assemble  in  their  synagogues  on  New  Year  and 
first  occupy  themselves  with  the  Shaharit  service  and  the  reading 
of  the  Biblical  portions.  The  authorities,  suspicious  of  the  Jewish 
assemblies, would  become  convinced  that  they  were  purely  religious 
gatherings  and  would  not  be  alarmed  when  the  Shofar  was 
sounded.  This  new  arrangement  thus  remained  in  force  even 
after  the  conditions  that  had  called  it  forth  had  long  passed  in 
the  course  of  time. 

In  the  absence  of  another  tradition  R.  Yofranan's  report 
deserves  credence  as  he  was  informed  in  historical  matters  (see 
Bacher,  Ag.  d.  Pal.  Amor.,  I,  pp.  207-08).  Only  later  on  R. 
Alexander  gave  an  homilectic  reason  for  the  new  custom  as  if  to 
justify  its  retention  even  after  the  echoes  of  the  Hadrianic  perse- 
cution had  long  subsided.131 

CONCLUSION. 

The  details  discussed  above,  disregarding  those  dealt  with 
in  the  last  section  (V),  illustrate  the  struggle  of  the  synagogue  of 
Israel  in  the  Magian-ridden  empire  of  the  Sassanids  and  still  more 

y  i'3-oo  in«  mpD3i  vypin  inx  mpoa,  which  'Itfur  (ed.  Lemberg,  II,  43b, 
middle)  correctly  interprets  (probably  on  the  basis  of  Gaonic  tradition): 
'i^)3  yipnV  ]'«TDOZ>  TOPH  'nu  unanooi. 

The  question  arises  whether  the  whole  benediction  for  -\BVP  nypn  was 
not  instituted  during  the  Hadrianic  persecution  as  a  substitute  for  the  actual 
sounding  of  the  Shofar  which  had  been  proscribed  (see  the  discussion  in  Yer. 
R.  H.  59d). 

131  See  Pes.  R.  c.  40  (ed.  Friedmann,  167b,  168a):  '3T  ora  Dms  '3T  no« 
TD'SDio  n^sm  N'JN  nrrto  n'rsnn  p  ]'ypin  J'N  nn^  rmjoa^N  '3i  DP3  'ib  p  rmrv 
'IDT  pi3  i3n  rmn  nixo  'tr^o  ]"i*o  iw  |'i3  DHDIJ;  ant  nyp3»  'ID. 

Vitry,  p.  385,  correctly  remarks  that  the  retention  of  the  custom  later  on 
was  due  to  this  homily:  loipoo)  noipQD  (read  ruon  n>  nrr  «V  mnn 
(read,  '131  «np'DS3 


302  JACOB  MANN 

in  Palestine  under  the  rule  of  Christian  Byzantium.  In  essence 
this  struggle  turned  on  the  freedom  of  giving  public  expression  to 
the  basic  principle  of  Judaism,  Monotheism,  though  other  aspects, 
such  as  the  teachings  of  the  Rabbis,  figured  therein.  In  the  long 
run  the  synagogue  prevailed  in  obtaining  this  freedom.  The 
modification  of  such  an  item  as  Q'J'Dn  roia,  to  remove  its  direct 
denunciation  of  the  members  of  another  faith,  was  a  step  in  the 
right  direction  leading  towards  the  acquisition  of  this  freedom. 
The  same  applies  to  the  adoration  TT^y,  on  the  whole  a  liturgical 
composition  of  sublime  aspirations,  yet  marred  at  its  beginning  by 
a  marked  disparagement  of  the  non-Jew.132  These  verbal  dis- 
paragements are  echoes  of  the  times  of  trial  and  tribulation  when 
amidst  an  environment  of  general  religious  intolerance  the  Jew 
was  out  of  all  proportion  wronged  as  against  his  own  wrongs  to 
others.  The  protest  of  his  outraged  feelings  found  expression  in 
the  Selihah  and  in  the  Kinnah — varieties  of  the  Piyyut  that 
seems  to  have  been  the  outcome  of  Justinian's  interference  with 
the  divine  service  of  the  synagogue — rather  than  in  the  original 
liturgy  the  bulk  of  which  dated  from  before  the  era  of  religious 
intolerance.  It  is  this  original  liturgy,  though  modified  in  course 
of  the  ages,  that  still  forms  the  basis  of  the  divine  service  of  the 
synagogue  of  today. 

APPEENDIX  (TO  PAGES  249-51). 

DATE  AND  PLACE  OF  REDACTION  OF  SEDER 
ELIYAHU  RABBA  AND  ZUTTA. 

The  various  views  about  the  time  and  the  place  of  the 
authorship  of  this  bi-sectional  midrash  are  fully  discussed  by 
Friedman  in  his  N13D  (pp.  91-102)  and  need  not  be  entered  in 
here  again  in  detail.  Theodor  in  his  review  of  this  toao  (M.  G.  W. 
/.,  vol.  47, 70-79),  in  criticizing  Friedman's  theory  of  assigning  the 
work  actually  to  the  time  of  the  Amora  R.  'Anan,  offers  no  sugges- 
tion of  his  own  on  the  problem.  The  last  to  discuss  the  work  is 

132  About  this  adoration  see  Elbogen  80-81;  cf.  also  Berliner,  Rand- 
bemerkungen,  I,  47-8,  49-50.  Its  daily  recital  at  the  end  of  the  service  is  dated 
by  Elbogen  at  about  1300.  However,  Vitry,  p.  75,  has  it  already  with  the 


CHANGES  IN  THE  DIVINE  SERVICE  303 

Eppenstein  (Beitrdge  zur  Gesch.  u.  Liter,  im  Geon.  Zeitalter,  pp. 
182-3),  who  fastens  himself  on  one  detail,  viz.,  the  designation  of 
the  non-Jew  as  'la,  to  come  to  the  conclusion  that  the  redactor 
did  not  live  in  a  Muslim  country  but  in  a  Christian  environment, 
in  Southern  Italy,  forgetting  that  if  the  work  referred  to  condi- 
tions in  Babylon  in  the  Sassanid  period,  this  expression  'la,  even 
if  granting  Eppenstein 's  contention  (already  used  by  Giidemann) 
for  argument's  sake,  would  fit  in  well.  G.  Klein's  curious  theory 
(Der  Alteste  Christliche  Katechismus  u.  die  Jiid.  Propaganda- 
Literatur,  1909,  68  ff.)  that  our  work,  in  its  original  form,  con- 
tained a  program  of  proselytising  for  the  heathens  and  was 
modified  by  a  redactor  living  during  the  Crusades  (sic!)  need 
hardly  be  taken  seriously.  The  writer  is  concerned  with  impress- 
ing upon  his  own  people  the  ethics  and  morality  of  Judaism.  The 
warnings  against  too  intimate  relations  with  the  heathen  (ed. 
Friedmann,  pp.  45-48)  are  the  best  refutation  of  Klein's  theory. 
In  discussing  this  remarkable  Midrash  the  historical  consi- 
deration of  the  general  political  situation  of  Jewry,  as  reflected  in 
our  work,  is  so  often  lacking.  All  scholars,  who  have  assigned  the 
redaction  of  this  Midrash  to  the  10th  century  by  reason  of  the 
late  dates  (see  above,  p.  249,  and  note  10),  have  overlooked  the 
significant  fact  that  nowhere  is  there  mentioned  the  rule  of  Islam 
extending,  as  it  did  then,  from  Persia  and  the  eastern  provinces 
to  Babylon,  Syria,  Palestine,  Egypt  and  whole  of  North-Africa 
and  reaching  out  to  Europe  by  the  occupation  of  Spain  and  also 
of  Sicily.  The  great  majority  of  the  Jewish  people  were  then 
living  in  this  vast  territory  under  the  sway  of  the  Muhammedans. 
The  only  reference  in  the  work  of  the  children  of  Ishmael,  "over 
whom  God  permitted  no  nation  to  rule,"133  evidently  alludes  to 
the  more  or  less  independent  Arab  tribes  extending  from  the 
Arabian  peninsula  proper  right  to  the  confines  of  Babylon  at  the 

indication  to  recite  it  quietly  (mi?1?  ir^y  vrbi  TDINI)  evidently  because  of  its 
anti-Christian  beginning.  In  the  ritual  of  the  English  Jews  before  the  expul- 
sion in  1290  we  find  a  long  version  also  with  a  marked  polemical  allusion  (JQR., 
IV,  56-7).  In  the  Palestinian  ritual,  as  preserved  in  the  Genizah  fragments, 
ir^y  seems  to  be  given  at  the  beginning  of  the  daily  service  (see  Mann,  276 
and  325). 

'»  Ch.  14,  ed.  Friedm.,  p.  65:  jm  K1?  V3«  riN  ^«J?DE»'  NTP  xyop  nto' 
'j?  ma^oi  HOIK  "jj1?  nizn  n'apn. 


304  JACOB  MANN 

lower  Euphrates.  The  author  probably  had  specifically  in  mind 
the  Arabs  in  the  so-called  kingdom  of  Hira  (in  the  neighborhood 
of  Kufa),  the  rulers  of  which,  though  vassals  of  the  Sassanids, 
retained  a  good  deal  of  independence.134  Of  the  great  change  to 
the  better  in  the  political  situation  of  the  majority  of  Jewry,  as 
compared  to  conditions  under  Christian  Rome  and  Byzantium, 
that  resulted  from  the  tremendous  political  ascendency  of  Islam 
since  the  death  of  Muhammad  and  onwards,  there  is  no  allusion 
in  our  book  which  occupies  itself  so  much  with  the  sad  treatment 
meted  out  to  Israel  by  the  D7iyn  moiM  depicting  so  poignantly 
their  oppression  and  tyranny  (see  ed.  Friedmann,  pp.  15,  20, 
24-5,  110,  111,  117,  120,  123,  133-4,  180,  197.) 

When  the  author  speaks  of  the  dominions,  who  had  shared 
among  themselves  "the  world,"  so  that  Israel  might  survive 
between  them  and  not  be  persecuted  in  its  entirety  were  there  a 
united  rule  over  it,I3S  he  clearly  refers  to  the  two  great  empires  of 
his  time,  viz.  that  of  the  Sassanids  and  of  Byzantium  (as  Fried- 
mann rightly  maintaied,  p.  114,  note  11,  end  NHD,  p.  82).  Both 
these  empires  maltreated  Israel  in  his  time,  as  is  evident  from  the 
re-iterated  complaints  of  oppression,  but  fortunately  a  respite  was 
given  to  the  large  Jewries  in  both  empires,  comprising  the  vast 
majority  of  the  Jewish  people,  by  the  very  fact  that  the  oppressive 
acts  occurred  at  different  times,  and  were  not  guided  by  a  united 
policy.  This  situation  did  not  obtain  at  the  time  of  R.  'Anan  at 
the  beginning  of  the  4th  century  (against  Friedmann 's  theory) 
because  conditions  in  Babylon  were  really  tolerable  after  the  first 
flush  of  victory  of  the  Magian  Persians  under  Ardeshir  (226  and 
following)  had  subsided.  Likewise  in  the  Roman  empire  the 
Jews  were  then  still  fully  enfranchised,  their  political  and  civic 
status  becoming  imperilled  only  since  the  triumph  of  Christianity 

IM  About  the  Arab  kingdom  of  Pttra  in  the  time  of  the  Sassanids,  see 
Noldeke,  fabari,  passim,  and  further  Rothstein,  Die  Dynastie  der  Labmiden  in 
al-Hlra,  1898. 

'«  Ch.  20,  pp.  113-114:  »m  ^  ION  .nn«  ipr  '»«o  .mpa1?  Dipno  naiy  wn  N'D: 
D^iyn  Va  N^D^'N  :i^  THON  tmaVoB  »n»^  ,Q'u  ':»"?  in'riy  n«  n'apn  p^n  no  MSD 
ona  ipjn  noy  ,^aa  -]bo  nxnaian  m»«  -]!?D  anmo  (insert  1D3>  inn  ni]  Ta 
tp1?  tru  ':»!?  iD^iy  n«  n'apn  p^n  K^>  «n 


CHANGES  IN  THE  DIVINE  SERVICE  305 

(since  312)  and  especially  since  the  reign  of  Constantius  (from 
337). 

Likewise  such  a  situation  does  not  fit  in  for  the  10th  century 
(and  in  fact  from  the  middle  of  the  7th  century  and  onwards) 
when  the  Jews  under  the  rule  of  Islam  were  by  far  better  treated 
than  under  Christendom  in  spite  of  occasional  outbreaks  of 
fanaticism  on  the  part  of  the  dominant  Muhammedans.  More- 
over, no  author  or  redactor  writing  in  the  10th  century,  whether 
in  Babylon  or  Palestine  or  in  Italy,  would  speak  of  "the  world" 
(viz.  the  one  wherein  the  bulk  of  Jewry  was  concentrated)  as 
divided  among  two  nations  and  two  empires  (nD^DO  'DP),  when 
the  Jews  in  Christian  Europe  belonged  to  different  dominions 
(Byzantium,  the  German  empire,  France,  etc.)  and  when  the 
Muhammedan  world  was  split  up  into  three  Caliphates,  viz.  the 
'  Abbasid  Caliphate  centered  in  Bagdad,  the  Fatimid  one  centered 
in  Mahedia,  near  Kairowan,  and  then  after  the  conquest  of  Egypt 
in  969,  in  Cairo,  and  the  Omayyad  one  centered  in  Cordova. 

The  political  background  of  the  Jewish  situation,  as  evident 
from  a  close  study  of  our  Midrash,  leads  us  to  the  second  half  of 
the  5th  century  when  the  large  Jewry  in  the  Sassanid  empire 
began  to  experience  real  religious  persecution  since  the  fanatical 
outbreaks  of  Yezdejerd  II  in  454-5,  followed  by  that  of  his  son 
Peroz.  This  coincided  with  the  chronic  intolerance  against  the 
Jews  prevalent  in  Byzantium  and  resulted  in  a  general  *?x~\v  JTi1?, 
in  spite  of  which  Israel  was  preserved,  because  in  its  vast  majority 
it  was  under  "two  nations  and  two  dominions,"  viz.  Persia  and 
Byzantium,  so  often  at  war  with  each  other  and  not  pursuing  a 
unified  policy  with  regard  to  the  treatment  to  be  meted  out  to  the 
Jews. 

There  is  further  a  clear  reference  to  the  Magians  in  Babylon 
and  to  their  power  in  the  state  quite  at  the  very  beginning  of  our 
Midrash  which  those  scholars,  who  assigned  the  work  to  the  10th 
century,  ought  to  have  first  accounted  for,  in  view  of  the  element- 
ary historical  fact  that  the  political  power  of  the  Magians  came  to 
an  end  with  the  overthrow  of  Sassanid  Empire  by  the  Muslims  in 
639.  The  author  relates136  of  an  official  raid  (evidently  against 


136  Ch.  1,  pp.  5-6:  'jioflm  ,min&n  ov  nn"m  ,c^iy;j»  ^.i)  TO  a  iVno  vrvi  N'D 
in«  -nn  *h»  to  .  .  .j'njior  anr  'l?3i  IDD  '^DI  niysiD  nioo  DD  '.Ttni  .i^on  n'33 


306  JACOB  MANN 

the  Jews)  in  "a  great  city  in  the  world"  (probably  Ctesiphon,  the 
capital  of  the  Sassanids)  in  the  course  of  which  he  himself  was 
arrested.  A  Magian  priest  (i?n)137  had  an  argument  with  him 

about  matters  of  difference  between  Judaism  and  Zoroastrianism, 
viz.  why  God  had  created  repulsive  creatures  (D'PDTi  D'XpE) 
which,  according  to  Zoroastrian  teaching,  would  be  the  work  of 
Ahriman,  the  god  of  darkness  and  evil,  and  about  the  symbol  of  fire 
(light)  as  emanating  from  Hormuzd  (Ahuramazda).  This  priest 
promised  the  captive  his  freedom,  if  he  answered  his  questions, 
which  indicates  the  political  influence  the  Magians  had  on  the 
government  officials,  whose  raid  probably  was  the  result  of  the 
former's  instigation.  Such  a  situation  obtained  in  Babylon  and 
in  Persia  under  the  Sassanids,  especially  under  Yezdejerd  II  and 
Peroz,  who  were  dominated  by  the  powerful  Magian  priests,  but 
certainly  not  under  the  rule  of  Islam,  not  to  speak  of  Italy  where 
such  a  situation  does  not  apply  at  all.  The  statement  that  "God 
created  everything  in  His  world  except  falsehood  and  iniquity" 
(Zutta  c.  3,  ed.  Friedm.  p.  175)138  also  seems  to  be  directed  against 
the  Dualistic  doctrine  of  Zoroastrianism  that  divided  the  creation 
between  Ahuramazda  and  Ahriman. 

Further  indication  of  the  author's  familiarity  with  Jewish 
conditions  in  Babylon  we  have  in  the  story  of  his  visit  to  "a  large 
city  in  the  Diaspora  of  Babylon"  inhabited  entirely  by  Jews.139 

1?  [~^M  "ion*  'w  nr  lai  '"?  TDNn  DN  :'^  TDK   .Ninpn  :i^  vnnN  ?nn«  nsio 

-Q  na  ^so  :^  na« 


I'Ton  »«.  aamim  STD  nn  ':DD  .m'JN  nr«  PN 
See  also  Friedmann,  K13D,  p.  82.     Reifmann's  emendation  (cf.  ibid  94,  note  3, 
end)  D'p'yaio  "?ni  -pra  is  unnecessary,  as  probably  Ctesiphon,  the  capital  of  the 


Persian  empire,  is  meant. 

w  About  the  fanaticism  of  these  Magian  priests,  see  the  Talmudic  pass- 
ages cited  in  'Arukh  s.v.  nan  (ed.  Kohut,  III,  339-40). 

138  Nia  «"?»  Viiy  m'Di  ,N-a  «"?»  ~ip»n  HTDD  ^in  iD^iya  n'apn  «na  ^3n. 


139  Ch.  18,  p.  100:  n1?!!)  ^yh  'no:a:i  ,^aa  hv  n"?n  iina  i^na  'n"n  nn«  DJIB 
D'ia  na  TKI  ^tott"  nViDB*.  Graetz  (Geschichte,  v.,  4th  ed.,  p.  335,  note  2)  takes 
*?aa  in  our  book  to  denote  Rome  in  order  to  assign  the  work  to  Italy.  But  for 
this  there  is  no  proof.  The  above  story  certainly  applies  better  to  the  large 
Babylonian  Jewry  where  there  would  be  cities  entirely  inhabited  by  Jews. 

Graetz's  further  remark  that  "the  twice  repeated  phrase:  Gog  and  Magog's 
punishing  judgment  has  already  befallen  the  peoples  (c.  3  and  5)  surely  (sic!) 
refers  to  the  devastating  invasions  of  the  Hungarians  into  Italy  during  889- 


CHANGES  IN  THE  DIVINE  SERVICE  307 

The  story  of  the  ignorant  Jew,  who  raised  his  voice  at  the  recital 
of  the  Kedushah  (p.  66),  also  refers  to  Babylon.  In  the  passage 
dealing  with  the  Messianic  times  (c.  20,  p.  113)  evidently  the 
Jews  of  Babylon  are  meant  who  would  leave  for  Palestine  and  will 
be  maintained  by  their  non-Jewish  neighbors.140  In  Babylon  the 
Jews  would  leave  behind  all  their  sins  and  return  to  the  Holy 
Land  in  purity.141  Altogether  from  the  cryptic  passage  in  c.  18 
(p.  98  top)  it  appears  that  the  view  was  prevalent  that  Elijah  had 
first  to  go  down  to  Babylon  before  the  appearance  of  the  Mes- 
siah.1"2 The  Messianic  hopes  possibly  inspired  the  author  to  put 
his  Midrash  into  the  framework  of  an  account  of  Elijah's  exper- 
iences during  his  peregrinations  amidst  Babylonian  Jewry.  Of 
the  ardent  desire  and  hope  for  the  restoration  of  Israel,  voiced  by 
the  Jews  of  his  time  amidst  the  tribulations  of  oppression,  there 
are  several  indications  in  our  Midrash.143 

The  mystical  manner  of  the  book  of  presenting  Elijah  as 
perennially  visiting  Israel  throughout  the  Diaspora  (moipo  "?J3 

955)"  is  entirely  unwarranted,  as  the  text  speaks  of  the  coming  and  the  down- 
fall of  Gog  in  the  Messianic  times!  See  p.  15,  top:  KU"?  Tny^  m  I3trn  ir>3i  m 
DV  ^33  Ton  niNii  irry  run  abiyi  irxm^  by  ia»i  1031  m  nspo  ^top'  'in  by, 
and  so  on  p.  24.  By  ^>N10'  'in  the  mountains  of  Palestine  are  meant  (cf.  Ezek. 
36.1).  Giidemann  (Geschichte  des  Erziehungswesens  u.  der  Cultur  der  Juden  in 
Ilalien,  p.  302)  makes  this  passage  to  be  a  reference  to  the  invasion  of  the  Mo- 
hammedans into  Italy.  How  theories  are  evolved  out  of  misunderstood  simple 
passages!  (Cf.  also  Friedm.,  NUD,  99,  note  3). 

If  anything  could  at  all  be  deduced  from  this  general  vague  statement  that 
Jewish  oppressors  are  to  be  seen  meeting  with  evil  ends  even  at  present,  one 
could  venture  to  find  therein  an  allusion  to  the  defeats  of  the  Persians  under 
Peroz  at  the  hands  of  the  Huns  (or  Haital)  resulting  in  the  death  of  this  oppres- 
sive king  in  492.  Altogether  the  Huns  were  in  the  5th  century  the  most  feared 
enemies  of  the  Sassanids  (see  Noldeke,  Tabari,  115,  note  2,  and  119  ff.). 


J<°  Ch.  20,  p.  113:  *?x-\w  fin1?  i^in  (viz.  Babylon)  pN3  onwjn  DMJ 

."7N1P'  bv  on'na  -pn1?  ]itoi  on1?  13 

'«'  P.  129:  '"«V  ]'iino  ]n»3  j'^iyi  ^7333  ]m«  I'mn  VN-IP'  bv  irvrmiy  bz. 

'4J  Ch.  18,  p.  98  top:  ITPD  «u'  O'KI  bub  n^>nn  TIV  'KW  ob-\yb  'mm  roil. 

'«  Ch.  4  p.  19  top:  bv  mas  by  n:t»noi  in'DN1?  min  131  12  wv  03m  osn  ^3  13 
no  1133  by\  D^PIT  1133  by  nexoi  IDHDI  niKnoi  ,ro'  ^»3  "?KI»'  bv  11133  byi  n'3pn 

.nv1?!  Dir3  byi  3iip3  n'oxni?  nyw  ^yi  pipon 

See  further  pp.  53;  110:  |'3'iyai  ]'D'3»o»  ^Ki»'3  ]H3  B"  nupn  D'ipr  nD3  nsr 
TDD  DT  "733  -\nywb  I'jjsoi  |'i«noi  jnono  ,»non  n'3^i  nown  n'3^  (repeated  also 
on  p.  112). 


308  JACOB  MANN 

Drrmnnn)  induced  the  author  to  clothe  the  accounts  of  his  own 
experiences  of  Jewish  life  in  the  form  of  Elijah  having  discussions 
with  the  sages  at  ^nan  amon  rva  in  Jerusalem  (pp.  49,  51,  80, 122) 
and  as  hailing  from  Yabneh  "the  seat  of  sages  and  Rabbis."144 
The  "great  school  of  Jerusalem"  and  Yabneh  are  only  metaphors 
of  speech  whereas  really  the  Babylonian  academies  are  meant. 
This  fact  of  the  author's  presentation  of  his  own  experiences  in 
the  garb  of  Elijah's  visit  to  Israel  in  the  Diaspora  is  probably 
also  the  cause  for  his  abandoning  the  usual  Midrashic  style  of  a 
mixture  of  Hebrew  and  Aramaic  and  composing  his  work  purely 
in  a  Hebrew,  so  full  of  choice  and  characteristic  expressions  (see 
the  list  given  by  Friedmann,  N130,  pp.  118  ff.),  which  renders  it  so 
unique  in  the  whole  Midrashic  literature.  Elijah,  the  prophet  of 
Biblical  times,  transplanted  among  the  angels,  who  were  not 
supposed  to  understand  Aramaic  (according  to  a  widely  spread 
tradition,  cf.,  e.g.,  So  {ah  33a),  naturally  has  to  recount  his 
journeyings,  arguments  and  experiences  in  Hebrew!  That  no 
author  in  the  Amoraic  period  could  have  written  a  work  in  such 
choice  Hebrew  and  would  have  only  to  employ  the  Hebrew- 
Aramaic  lingo  found  in  the  Talmud,  is,  of  course,  a  weak  argu- 
ment that  hardly  requires  a  refutation  (see  the  pertinent  remarks 
of  Friedmann,  N13D,  131,  bottom,  and  132,  top). 

How  haphazardly  there  was  detected  that  "in  the  whole  work 
there  blows,  so  to  say,  a  European  air"  (to  use  Graetz's  metaphor) 
can  be  seen  from  the  theories  evolved  from  the  references  in  the 
book  to  trade  and  commerce  and  to  the  business  relations  between 
Jews  and  non-Jews  by  Giidemann  (/.  c.,  53-54)  and  Eppenstein 
(I.e.,  183),  as  if  Italy  was  the  only  country  in  the  world  wherein 
such  conditions  obtained  among  the  Jews!  In  the  Babylonian 
Talmud  there  are  many  references  to  the  occupations  of  the  Jews 
including  their  journeys  for  purposes  of  business.  One  has  only 
to  refer  to  those  who  made  sea  journeys  (ND'  'mm,  Sabb.  20b, 
2 la,  90a,  R.  H.  2 la,  bottom,  etc.)  and  to  those  who  travelled  to 
distant  Ahwaz  (win  '3)  which  route  it  took  a  caravan  to  cover 
there  and  back  about  12  months  (cf.  B.  K.  112b,  bottom).  Nu- 

'«  P.  95:  D'aii  D'Dnn  nipoo  ']«  nn'D,  Zufta,  c.  1.,  p.  168,  top.  The  latter 
title  pi  may  refer  to  the  Patriarchs  who  were  thus  styled.  It  certainly  should 
not  be  construed  in  the  sense  of  Rabbanites  as  against  Karaites. 


CHANGES  IN  THE  DIVINE  SERVICE  309 

merous  data  testify  to  their  social  and  business  relations  with 
non-Jews  in  Babylon.  Several  statements  of  the  Babylonian 
Amoraim  reflect  their  observation  of  the  standards  of  life  of  the 
non-Jews  in  their  country.145 

The  disputes,  which  our  author  had  with  people  knowing  or 
accepting  the  Bible  only  but  not  the  Oral  Law,  have  rightly  been 
proved  by  Friedmann  (N130,  93-98)  to  have  no  bearing  whatever 
on  Rabbanite  and  Karaite  polemics,  as  Bacher  and  Oppenheim 
had  maintained.  Our  Midrash  rather  reveals  the  significant  fact 
that  as  late  as  the  second  half  of  the  5th  century  there  were  still 
in  Babylon  people  who  opposed  the  Oral  Law,  and  that  this 
skepticism  towards  Rabbinic  Judaism  probably  continued  sur- 
reptitiously in  the  following  centuries  till  it  was  organized  into  a 
formidable  movement  since  the  times  of  'Anan,  the  founder  of 
Karaism. 

The  whole  evidence  thus  gathered  from  a  close  study  of  the 
work  leads  its  origin  back  to  Babylon  in  the  Sassanid  period  (as 
Friedmann  rightly  maintained),  however,  not  to  the  time  of  the 
Amora  R.  'Anan  but  rather  to  the  second  half  of  the  fifth  century. 
The  complaint  of  the  great  oppression  of  Israel  in  both  world 
empires  of  that  time,  viz.  Byzantium  and  Persia,  reflect  well 
conditions  in  the  latter  country  since  the  close  of  the  reign  of 
Yezdejerd  II  (454-5).  The  item  of  the  prohibition  of  the  Shema' 
(above,  pp.  247  ff.)  strengthens  this  conclusion  still  more.  W. 
Jabez146  was  on  the  right  track  in  using  the  point  of  the  prohibi- 
tion of  the  Shema'  as  a  clue  for  fixing  the  approximate  date  of  our 
Midrash  but  he  soon  went  astray  in  explaining  this  prohibition  to 
have  fallen  in  the  time  of  Heraclius  after  his  reconquest  of 
Palestine  in  629.  Hence  our  author  became  a  Palestinian  who 
even  alluded  to  the  then  leader  of  the  Palestinian  Jews,  viz.  no 
less  a  person  than  Benjamin  of  Tiberias.  Atlas  (in  D~on,  96-102) 
rightly  refuted  Jabez  by  realizing  that  this  prohibition  of  the 

'«  The  whole  matter  cannot,  of  course,  be  entered  in  here.  Cf.  for  the  present 
Gezow,  ^33  nnn:  hy,  34-35,  41-43,  and  Funk,  Die  Juden  in  Babylonien,  I, 
18-19,  26-27. 

'««  In  Rabbinowitz's  *?K-\W  noia,  I  (1886),  382-86.  Cf.  the  analysis  of  his 
arguments  by  Friedmann,  HUD,  98-102,  but  he,  too,  has  no  clear  view  on  the 
matter,  even  venturing  to  suggest  (p.  101)  that  the  passage  in  c.  19  (p.  110) 
TIK  ]'D':a  hy  3'PD3  •}*?  "in  refers  to  Benjamin  of  Tiberias! 


310  JACOB  MANN 

Shema'  should  be  connected  with  Yezdejerd's  decree  in  454-5. 
But  he,  too,  soon  lost  his  clue  to  go  astray  in  his  own  speculation.147 
Our  dating  of  the  book  places  it  prior  to  the  conclusion  of  the 
Babylonian  Talmud  which  took  place  around  500  C.  E.  Hence 
the  Mishnah  is  cited  several  times  (rutpoa  D'DDn  UP,  see  the  enu- 
meration of  the  passages  by  Friedmann  NUD,  pp.  59-60)  but 
never  the  Talmud  as  such.148  Theodor's  arguments  (/.  c.,  77-78) 
really  do  not  explain  this  fact  in  the  least.  Why  not  a  single 
Amora  is  mentioned  by  name  seems  rather  to  be  due  to  the 
tendency  of  the  author  to  anonymous  quoting.  Hence  there  are 
found  many  quotations  beginning  with  I~IDN,  TIBK  p'a  ,D'O3n  I~IDN 
(see  the  list,  ibid.  p.  60).  But  while  realising  this  tendency  it  is 
not  yet  clear  why  he  adopted  this  policy,  though  living  at  a  time 
when  the  work  of  the  Amoraim  in  Babylon  was  practically  com- 
pleted. But  this  is  evident  that  had  the  Babylonian  Talmud  been 
before  him  in  a  complete  form,  as  the  Mishnah  was,  he  would 
have  used  the  expression  TioWn  D'Don  V®  (or  perhaps  toon)  just 
as  he  introduced  his  Mishnaic  quotations  with  the  formula  1:2 
rwaa  D'Dsn.  This  consideration  militates  further  against  assigning 
the  book  to  the  10th  century  when  the  Babylonian  Talmud  was 
the  common  property  of  Jewry  all  over  the  Diaspora.  On  the 
other  hand  in  the  second  half  of  the  5th  century  the  Babli, 
though  arranged  under  the  supervision  of  R.  Ashi  (d.  427)  and 
his  colleagues,  remained  still  the  guarded  treasure  of  the 
Academies,149  reaching  its  completion  only  about  500  and  receiving 
still  further  additions  and  finishing  touches  by  the  Saboraim  in  the 
course  of  the  6th  century.  Living  in  Babylon  our  author  also  was 
not  yet  familiar  with  the  Yerushalmi  (supposedly  concluded,  or 
more  correctly  interrupted,  about  425).  A  knowledge  of  the 
Yerushalmi  seems  to  have  penetrated  to  Babylon  only  later 
during  the  Gaonic  period. 

147  Cf.  also  Friedmann 's  criticism,  Kiao,  102,  note  1. 

148  In  c.   18  (p.  106)  the  expression  Tic"?n  in  the  sentence:  DDm  Don  73  1« 
HJ»D  bv  nnrnc  nxo  tnpo  hv  nutsno  n«a  U3"?3  w  ,'ncN1?  min  nan  n  wv  ^tn»'D 
-iiQ7n  7V  mawn  TO  n«oi  means  of  course  arguments  deduced  by  means  of  the 
Biblical  exegesis  (see  Bacher,  Exeget.  Terminologie,  I,  199  ff.).    On  p.  68  (n:zn 
nnaxi  no1?™  nn^n  emo)   the  word  •nnVn  is  evidently  a  gloss  (cf.  Friedm., 

K13D,  p.  60). 

149  Regardless  of  the  mooted  problem  whether  in  an  oral  or  written  forn» 


UC  SOUTHERN  REGIONAL  LIBRARY  FACILITY 

mill! 


A     000108455     7 


